Skip to main content

Performance of waist-to-height ratio as a screening tool for identifying cardiometabolic risk in children: a meta-analysis

Abstract

Objective

To provide the latest evidence of performance and robustness of waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) in discriminating clusters of cardiometabolic risk factors (CMRs) and promote WHtR in routine primary health care practice in children, a meta-analysis was used.

Methods

Searches was performed in eight databases from inception to July 03, 2020. Inclusion criteria were: (1) observational study, (2) children and adolescents, (3) provided WHtR measurements, (4) had CMRs as outcomes, and (5) diagnostic studies. Exclusion criteria were: (1) non-original articles, (2) unable to extract 2 × 2 contingency tables, (3) not in English or Chinese language, (4) populations comprising clinical patients, or (5) duplicate articles. WHtR cutoff points, 2 × 2 contingency tables were extracted from published reports. Outcomes included: CMR clusters of at least three CMRs (CMR3), two (CMR2), one (CMR1), and CMR components. Bivariate mixed-effects models were performed to estimate the summarised area under the curves (AUSROC) with 95% CIs and related indexes. We conducted subgroup analyses by sex and East Asian ethnicity.

Results

Fifty-three observational studies were included. The AUSROC reached 0.91 (95% CI: 0.88–0.93), 0.85 (95% CI: 0.81, 0.88) and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.71, 0.79) for CMR3, CMR2, and CMR1, respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for CMR3 reached 0.84 and exceeded 0.75 for CMR2. For CMR1, the sensitivity achieved 0.55 with 0.84 for specificity. We had similar findings for our subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions

WHtR shows good and robust performance in identifying CMRs clustering across racial populations, suggesting its promising utility in public health practice globally.

Background

Childhood obesity is associated with various cardiometabolic risk factors (CMRs), such as elevated fasting blood glucose (FBG), elevated glycated haemoglobin levels, dyslipidaemia, and elevated blood pressure (BP) [1, 2]. The presence of these CMRs may be tracked to adulthood and is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular and metabolic diseases [3]. Although several behavioural interventions have been developed to curb the obesity epidemic, the long-term success of these interventions remains unsatisfactory [4]. Therefore, identifying the high-risk groups with CMRs from an early age people with obesity could benefit in improving health awareness and behaviour of children and further promote their long-term adherence [5]. This may be of great potential to prevent the development of advanced stages to cardiometabolic diseases.

Overweight or obesity, FBG, lipid profiles, and BP are recommended as important risk factors of cardiovascular diseases in later life [6], indicating current cardiometabolic risk status with clear diagnostic criteria. The abnormal status of which has been included as the component of metabolic syndrome (MetS), as the widely-used definition proposed by the International Diabetes Federation [7]. A blood test is recommended to identify dyslipidaemia among at-risk children [6]. However, it is not feasible to use blood tests to identify CMRs in apparently healthy children based on routine physical examinations, especially in early age children. As the prevention and early detection of CMRs before the onset of obesity-related medical problems are critically important for children, obesity-related anthropometric indexes with easy measurement and classifications have been considered to detect paediatric CMRs rapidly and economically [8, 9].

Waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) was proposed as an index of abdominal obesity that may predict multiple coronary heart disease risk factors in the 1990s [10]. Compared with BMI and WC classifications in defining childhood obesity, WHtR that was the ratio of WC to height shows much less variable with age. This feature makes the classification of obesity or discrimination of CMRs much easier, with a single cutoff across an age range. Previous work has demonstrated that WHtR is an accurate and simple tool for quick and mass screening of CMR in children compared with body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference (WC) [8, 11, 12]. To date, only two meta-analyses have been reported using WHtR for identifying CMRs in the children population, though original studies of this topic are abundant. However, these studies presented limitations with respect to methodology; further, there were only a small number of eligible original studies [13, 14]. The most recent diagnostic meta-analysis in 2016 has demonstrated comparable performances among WHtR, BMI and WC in screening CMRs in children [13]. Of note, the practical application of WC and BMI is inconvenient in the paediatric population because of the requirement for age- and sex-specific references and studies showed that WHtR is age-independent compared with other obesity-related indexes [15,16,17,18]. Therefore, WHtR can still be recognised as the most promising one [13, 19] due to good screening accuracy, easy calculation and interpretation.

Moreover, the excellent performance of WHtR with the summarised area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) in discriminating MetS exceeded 0.8 [13]. Since that, a range of new original studies have been published, presenting good but diverse discriminating performances of WHtR in screening various CMRs and MetS based on different population and methodologies [8, 20,21,22,23,24].

A boundary value of WHtR of 0.5 has been proposed for the adult population and widely applied in children studies [25]. The optimal WHtR cutoff for the children population is still inconsistent to achieve satisfactory discrimination of cardiometabolic risk across the studies [21, 26]. Our meta-analysis included different populations with various optimal cutoffs to verify the generalizability and robustness of WHtR for CMRs screening. Through evaluating the performance and robustness of WHtR based on up-to-date studies, our meta-analysis extended previous findings to evaluate the practical values of WHtR as a screening tool in discriminating individual and clusters of CMRs. Furthermore, we reported a range of evaluation indexes for the first time to provide more convincing evidence of the feasibility and applicability of using WHtR in routine public health practices.

Methods

Search strategy

Our meta-analysis followed the PRISMA guidelines on a transparent and reproducible process. Comprehensive searches were performed performed using the OVID platform in the following databases: Pubmed, Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library and the Chinese databases of Wan fang, CNKI, VIP, and Sinomed from inception to July 03, 2020. Search terms included "waist-to-height ratio", "children", and the synonym combinations of them. The search strategy used in PubMed is presented in Additional file 1. The same screening terms were used in the rest of the databases. We also conducted forwards and backwards citation tracking of included studies to identify potentially eligible studies.

Inclusion criteria

We included studies that met the following criteria: (1) observational in design, (2) had a target population of children and adolescents, or studies of the general population which provided data on a subgroup of children and adolescents, (3) provided data on WHtR measurement, and had (4) at least one of the following CMRs as the primary outcome: elevated FBG, elevated BP, dyslipidaemia, elevated total cholesterol (TC), elevated triglyceride (TG), low high-density leptin cholesterol (HDL-C), elevated low-density leptin cholesterol (LDL-C), central obesity and clustered of CMRs, and (5) diagnostic studies.

Exclusion criteria

The studies that met the following criteria were excluded: (1) non-original articles, e.g., reviews (2) unable to extract 2 × 2 contingency tables, (3) not in English or Chinese language, (4) populations comprising primarily clinical patients, or (5) duplicate articles.

Data extraction

To determine study eligibility, two reviewers (YJ & Yl D) independently screened titles, abstracts and identified full-texts. Discrepancies between reviewers were settled through discussions with the reviewer team (Wl Y, Y Z, Xt C, Y W).

These two reviewers extracted the following characteristics of the included studies: author, published year, study year, country, study design, sample size, sex, age, WC measurement technique, WHtR cutoff point, and 2 × 2 contingency table. For those articles without an original contingency table, we extracted the prevalence of CMRs, and the reported diagnostic accuracy parameters (sensitivity, specificity or ROCs) to calculate the value of true-positive (tp), false-positive (fp), true-negative (tn), and false-negative (fn). WHtR was computed as the WC in centimetres divided by the height in centimetres in each original articles.

Quality assessment

The quality of the included studies was independently assessed by two reviewers (YJ & Yl D) using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. QUADAS-2 is a revised tool for systematic reviews in evaluating the quality of original diagnostic accuracy studies in the realm of bias and applicability, which involve four domains (patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing). The reviewer team was in charge of mediating discrepancies regarding quality assessment [27].

Statistical analysis

We performed the meta-analysis based on five groups of outcomes as follows, referring to the commonly used paediatric MetS definitions of the International Diabetes Federation and the widely studied CMR components in children:

  1. (1)

    Cluster of CMRs

  • CMR3: presenting with least three of CMRs (elevated FBG, elevated BP, dyslipidaemia, central obesity);

  • CMR2: presenting with least two of CMRs;

  • CMR1: presenting with at least one of CMRs.

  1. (2)

    Elevated FBG

  2. (3)

    Elevated BP

  3. (4)

    Dyslipidaemia

    Dyslipidaemia was defined as having at least one of the following abnormalities: elevated TC, or elevated TG, or low HDL-C, or elevated LDL-C. To reduce the heterogeneity of the summarised result, we further pooled dyslipidaemia components separately.

  4. (5)

    Central obesity

The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and prevalence of outcomes were calculated based on tp, fp, tn, and fn extracted from original studies. When results in the original studies were presented by age and sex stratifications, we combined these results into an overall estimation. Summary Area Under Receiver Operating Characteristic (AUSROC), sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using the bivariate mixed-effects model based on the random-effects assumption [28]. The advantages of reporting AUSROC lies in its capability of reflecting the interaction between sensitivity and specificity when the threshold effect exists. We assessed between-study heterogeneity using Cochran's Q, and also quantified heterogeneity using the I2 statistic. Heterogeneities were substantial when I2 over 50% or P-value of Q statistic < 0.05. The threshold effects were evaluated by pairwise correlations between sensitivity and 1-specificity with a P-value < 0.05.

We further carried out subgroup analyses based on sex and an East Asian ethnicity only due to the limited number of studies in other ethnicities. In our sensitivity analysis, we explored the heterogeneity of the results, for the primary outcome CMR3, by only summarising studies that used identical CMR components, e.g. FBG, HDL-C, TG, BP, and central obesity.

Deek's funnel asymmetry tests were used to test publication bias; a non-zero slope coefficient suggested significant bias (P-value < 0.05). We sought to figure out possible sources of heterogeneity from diagnostic standards of outcomes, e.g., FBG, BP, dyslipidaemia components, and central obesity, and WHtR cutoff values using meta-regression based on joint models, when we had enough statistical power to do so [29]. The joint model was a comprehensive index in consideration of heterogeneity for sensitivity and specificity. Specifically, the diagnostic criteria for each outcome were classified into a dichotomous variable as follows: elevated FBG ≥ 5.6 mmol/L(100 ng/dL) vs other cutoffs as a group; divided elevated BP into the fixed value of SBP ≥ 130 mmHg or DBP ≥ 85 mmHg or the percentile based on the reference standard; split elevated TG by ≥ 150 mg/dL/ (1.6935 mmol/L) vs other cutoffs as a group; divided low HDL-C into between < 40 mg/dL (0.998 mmol/L) or not; grouped central obesity according to the WC ≥ the 90th percentile of the age- and sex-specific reference standard. The effect of each covariate on sensitivity and specificity separately was not depicted in our meta-regression, as we emphasised the comprehensive index in consideration of heterogeneity from both of them. All analyses were performed using Stata version 15.0 (Stata, Version 15.0 [computer program], Tex Stata Corp., Coll. Station, 2015).

Role of the funding source

The funding sources had no influence on study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, paper writing. All authors confirmed that they had full access to all the data in the study and accepted the responsibility to submit for publication.

Results

Figure 1 depicts the search results of this meta-analysis. Of the 2,204 hits, 578 duplicates were removed, and the 1,626 titles and abstracts were screened. Of these, 1,380 were excluded because they were not considered to meet the study inclusion criteria based on the title and abstract. A total of 246 abstracts appeared to be potentially relevant and were collected as full-text articles to be assessed for eligibility for the meta-analysis. A total of 193 articles were subsequently excluded for the reasons listed in Fig. 1, which left 53 studies included in the meta-analysis.

Fig. 1
figure1

Selection process of primary studies in the meta-analysis. Of the 2204 citations yielded through database searching, 578 citations were removed due to duplicate. In the rest of 1626 citations, 1380 were excluded by screening titles and abstracts. Full-texts were assessed in 246, and an additional of 193 studies further were precluded. Finally, a total of 53 studies were included in the meta-analysis

Characteristics of the included studies are presented in Table 1. These studies were performed between 1993 and 2018 and conducted in 24 countries; of these, nine in Europe, seven in Asia, four in South America, three in Africa, and one in North America. Besides, the majority of studies were in the cross-sectional study design, with only one cohort study and one case–control study in our meta-analysis. Study subjects ranged in age from six to 20. The sample size among these studies ranged from 178 to 105,245. WHtR cutoffs extracted contingency tables, and the calculated diagnostic indexes from original studies are listed in Additional file 2: Table S1.

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies in the meta-analysis

The quality evaluations of the included studies through QUADAS-2 are shown in Additional file 3: Table S2 and Fig. 2. Among 53 included studies, two studies were evaluated in high risk of bias in the domain of flow and timing, two studies with a high probability of bias in the domain of reference standard, zero in the domain of index text(s), and three studies in the domain of patient selection. Moreover, the applicability of original studies was in good performances on the whole, with only one study assessed in the high risk in the domain of reference standard and patient selection, respectively.

Fig. 2
figure2

The quality evaluations of included studies through QUADAS-2. The risk of bias was low in most of the studies. Among them, the number of studies having a high risk of bias was two, two, zero and three in the domains of flow and timing, reference standard, index test(s), and patent selection, respectively. The majority of studies were of good applicability. Only one studies presented great concerns in the reference standard domain and one in the patient selection domain

Table 2 shows the summarised results of the diagnostic accuracy of WHtR for identifying CMRs. The value of pooled AUSROC increased with the number of CMRs, with 0.91 (95% CI: 0.88, 0.93), 0.85(95% CI: 0.81, 0.88), and 0.75(95% CI: 0.71, 0.79) for CMR3, CMR2, and CMR1, respectively. For CMR3, pooled sensitivity reached to 0.84 (95% CI: 0.76, 0.90), specificity of 0.84 (95% CI: 0.78, 0.88), and DOR reached 28 (95% CI: 14, 54). For single CMR components outcomes, the values of AUSROC were relatively lower in general, with 0.59 (95% CI: 0.55, 0.63) for screening elevated FBG, 0.69 (95% CI: 0.65, 0.73) for elevated blood pressure, and 0.66 (95% CI: 0.62, 0.70) for dyslipidaemia. Notably, the AUSROC reached 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94, 0.97) in discriminating central obesity. Threshold effects were founded in pooled elevated FBG, elevated BP, and dyslipidaemia (P values < 0.001), with a correlation coefficient of 0.949, 0.801, and 0.859, respectively. Substantial heterogeneities were found among studies in each CMR outcome, which showed that all indexes of I2 were 100%, and Q statistics were significant (P < 0.001; Additional file 4: Table S3). No publication bias was founded excepted for elevated blood pressure (P-value = 0.032 based on Deek's funnel plot asymmetry test). The forest plots of pooled sensitivities, specificities, and odd diagnostic ratios in discriminating CMRs are listed (Additional file 5: Figure S1–S14).

Table 2 Summarised performance of WHtR screening for CMRs in children and adolescents

Subgroup analyses by sex showed similar results with the entire population, with AUSROC of CMR3 being 0.89 (95%CI: 0.78, 0.95) for boys and 0.84 (0.76, 0.90) for girls, respectively (Additional file 6: Table S4). The sex difference was not significant among each outcome. Performances of WHtR in summarised studies of the East Asian population were consistent with that of the entire population (Additional file 7: Table S5). The AUSROC reached 0.92 (95% CI: 0.89, 0.94), 0.88 (95% CI: 0.85, 0.90), and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.75, 0.82) for CMR3, CMR2, and CMR1, respectively. Notably, the heterogeneity remained high in each outcome of these two subgroups, with I2 ranging from 96 to 100.

We further performed the sensitivity analysis for CMR3 in 13 studies with five identical components: elevated FBG, low HDL-C, elevated TG, elevated BP, and central obesity. We found that the AUSROC reached 0.90 (95%CI: 0.80, 0.95) with the sensitivity of 0.89 (95%CI: 0.82, 0.93) and specificity of 0.89 (95%CI: 0.82, 0.93). Although the threshold effect was not significant (p = 0.905), the heterogeneity remained large, with I2 of 100% (Additional file 8: Table S6). We did not analyse the other outcomes, e.g., CMR2 or CMR1, because the numbers of studies with identical components were less than three.

In our meta-regression analyses (Table 3), we found that various WHtR cutoffs used in the original studies may account for 69% to 99% of the heterogeneity of the meta-analyses, while the differences in using different diagnostic criteria for defining components of CMRs did not make a significant contribution.

Table 3 Possible sources of heterogeneity: meta-regressions

Discussion

In this study, the excellent performances of WHtR significantly prove its advantage in screening children with CMRs in routine practice. We found that the satisfactory performance of WHtR was notable for discriminating clustered CMRs. Especially for identifying CMR3 (affected with at least three CMR abnormalities), the AUSROC would reach 0.91 with both the sensitivity and specificity achieved 0.84, and the DOR of 28 indicated that the odds of being affecting CMR3 were 28 times higher among children with WHtR over cutoff values than that of non-CMR3. Besides, the AUSROC attained 0.85 for screening CMR2 and 0.75 for CMR1. As a comprehensive concept with public health significance, the clustered CMRs can be detected by WHtR accurately, and the more severe the CMR, the easier it will be identified. Moreover, the summarised results posed that WHtR remained robust in East Asian populations and each sex. These findings further strengthen the evidence of the application values of WHtR and promote this quick and convenient measurement as a routine screening tool in the practice of prevention and control of CMR in children.

After the meta-analysis previously published in 2016 [13], many recent original studies involving more diverse ethnicities and methodologies were summarised in our meta-analysis through the more optimised statistical models, which further provided superior and more informative findings. Our meta-analysis of 23 studies presented a slightly better performance (AUSROC of 0.91) for CMR3 screening compared with the previous one (AUSROC = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.77, 0.86) that identified MetS [13]. Furthermore, the consistent performance of WHtR in screening cardiometabolic diseases has been demonstrated in adult populations based on a meta-analysis [17], with the pooled AUC of WHtR for incident diabetes, MetS, and total incident cardiovascular disease were all over 0.7. These findings suggest that WHtR could be a useful tool in identifying both CMR in children and cardiometabolic diseases in adults.

Central obesity is a critical component and precondition of MetS in children and adolescents [30], which can be defined by the sex and age-specific WC percentile for children [31]. As WHtR had a substantial accuracy in identifying central obesity with the excellent AUSROC of 0.96, the criterion for clustered CMRs including the central obesity in our study may make the accuracy of identification of clustered results slightly higher (the AUSROC reached 0.91for CMR3), which has been indicated in our previous study (AUC for CMR3 including central obesity v.s. that excluding central obesity, 0.89 v.s 0.76) [18]. Early evidence also supported the good performance of WHtR for screening CMR components excluded central obesity. Previous meta-analyses of the paediatric population illustrated that the pooled AUC of WHtR screening MetS factors without central obesity reached 0.71 (95% CI: 0.66, 0.75) [12], and for the cardiometabolic comorbidities of at least three items was 0.69 (95% CI: 0.57, 0.80), which were acceptably accurate [13]. CMRs such as obesity, hypertension, and dyslipidaemia tend to cluster in youth [32]. Cohort studies show strong evidence that single or cluster CMRs present during adolescence likely track forward to adulthood and are related to markedly increased risk for cardiovascular or metabolic disease [33,34,35,36,37]. These all underline the importance of identifying children at increased risk for cardiometabolic comorbidity as early in life as possible.

We found that our meta-analyses suffer from high heterogeneity. Although WHtR over 0.5 has been proposed as a healthy cutoff for avoiding cardiovascular disease and diabetes for adults and been widely used [11], various WHtR cutoffs have been adopted in the original studies to fit their study populations with different prevalence levels of CMR. An Algerian study showed that the optimal cutoff value of 0.55 achieved a specificity of 0.89 in identifying girls with MetS, while this number was only 0.75 using the well-reported cutoff of 0.5 [38]. Our previous study also suggested that the critical value of WHtR of 0.467 is more accurate than 0.50 in Chinese children [20]. We used the AUSROC to minimise the influence of the threshold effects [17, 30]. The findings from our meta-regression demonstrated that heterogeneity of our findings might likely be explained by different threshold cutoffs used to classify WHtR and less likely due to different standards of diagnosing outcome variables, e.g., slightly different diagnosing cutoffs. In addition, subgroup analyses for sex and ethnic background, i.e. Eastern Asian populations, as well as our sensitivity analyses summarising studies with homogenous CMR components also supported the robustness of the main results. Moreover, the biases were limited in included original studies among all four domains by QUADAS-2. Although most of the studies did not report whether blinding was used, we still believe that biases from unblinding do not exist in our study, because both WHtR and the standard of CMRs were defined based on objectively measured numerical values. It is not likely to bias the quality evaluation results.

Our meta-analysis had several strengths. First, our meta-analysis based on the most updated, relevant studies over the world provided the most substantial evidence to date about WHtR as a promising screening tool for CMRs in the children population. Second, our study presented multiple summary diagnostic accuracy indexes, including AUSROC, sensitivity, specificity, DOR, and likelihood ratio, which were more informative for public-health practice decisions [28]. Third, we presented WHtR performance for a series of a single component of CMRs, providing decision-makers with thorough information when using it for populations with different disease status. We further discriminated the summary results in three levels of CMR clusters representing the comprehensive cardiometabolic risk in children. Fourth, this was the first meta-analysis discriminating the performance of WHtR for CMRs in the East Asia population who were less tolerable of obesity and developed earlier to CMRs at a lower level of BMI [39].

Our analyses must be interpreted in the context of the limitations of the available data. First, we found significant heterogeneity of included studies and using diverse WHtR cutoffs for screening CMRs as the main determinant. Overall, the results of analyses for meta-regressions, subgroup analyses, and sensitivity analyses into considerations highlighted the robustness and the accuracy of WHtR in screening CMRs. Additionally, our synthesised results were more evidence-based than a single original study. The variation in measuring and defining WHtR and CMRs existed in the original studies, and our evidence-based synthesis to some extent helped ensure the generalizability of the main findings for translation into clinical practice. Secondly, we found fewer relevant studies from other races, such as Caucasians and Africans; therefore, the performance of WHtR in these populations needed more evidence so that we may be able to accurately generalise to these populations. Third, obesity-related CMRs vary with age; given the lack of this information from the original studies included in our review, we could not consider this factor in our analyses. Fourth, the different WC measurement techniques may cause bias and variability among original studies [40] and lead to the heterogeneity of our meta-analysis. However, a systematic review of 120 studies suggested that different WC measurement techniques are not likely to bias the association between the WC or WHtR and cardiometabolic diseases [41]. Future studies and efforts are expected to translate this evidence into practise of preventing and controlling CMRs in children and adolescents.

Conclusion

In summary, our meta-analysis presents a good performance of WHtR in identifying children and adolescents with CMRs, and the findings appear robust to other factors, including ethnicity. This evidence strongly supports WHtR as a promising and practical tool in routine primary health care practice of controlling obesity-related CMRs in children and adolescents.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

AUC:

Area under the curve

AUSROC:

Summary Area Under Receiver Operating Characteristic

BMI:

Body mass index

BP:

Blood pressure

CIs:

Confidence intervals

CMRs:

Cardiometabolic risk factors

DOR:

Diagnostic odds ratio

FBG:

Fasting blood glucose

HDL-C:

High-density leptin cholesterol

LDL-C:

Low-density leptin cholesterol

MetS:

Metabolic syndrome

NLR:

Negative likelihood ratio

NPV:

Negative predictive value

PLR:

Positive likelihood ratio

PPV:

Positive predictive value

QUADAS-2:

Quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-2

ROC:

Receiver operating characteristic curve

TC:

Total cholesterol

TG:

Triglyceride

WC:

Waist circumference

WHtR:

Waist-to-height ratio

References

  1. 1.

    Mokha JS, Srinivasan SR, Dasmahapatra P, Fernandez C, Chen W, Xu J, et al. Utility of waist-to-height ratio in assessing the status of central obesity and related cardiometabolic risk profile among normal weight and overweight/obese children: the Bogalusa Heart Study. BMC Pediatr. 2010;10:73.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Skinner AC, Perrin EM, Moss LA, Skelton JA. Cardiometabolic risks and severity of obesity in children and young adults. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(14):1307–17.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Twig G, Yaniv G, Levine H, Leiba A, Goldberger N, Derazne E, et al. Body-mass index in 2.3 million adolescents and cardiovascular death in adulthood. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(25):2430–40.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Fothergill E, Guo J, Howard L, Kerns JC, Knuth ND, Brychta R, et al. Persistent metabolic adaptation 6 years after “The Biggest Loser” competition. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2016;24(8):1612–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Teixeira PJ, Carraça EV, Marques MM, Rutter H, Oppert JM, De Bourdeaudhuij I, et al. Successful behavior change in obesity interventions in adults: a systematic review of self-regulation mediators. BMC Med. 2015;13:84.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Expert Panel on Integrated Guidelines for Cardiovascular Health and Risk Reduction in Children and Adolescents; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Expert panel on integrated guidelines for cardiovascular health and risk reduction in children and adolescents: summary report. Pediatrics. 2011;128 Suppl 5(Suppl 5):S213-56.

  7. 7.

    Zimmet P, Alberti KG, Kaufman F, Tajima N, Silink M, Arslanian S, et al. The metabolic syndrome in children and adolescents - an IDF consensus report. Pediatr Diabetes. 2007;8(5):299–306.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Aguilar-Morales I, Colin-Ramirez E, Rivera-Mancía S, Vallejo M, Vázquez-Antona C. Performance of waist-to-height ratio, waist circumference, and body mass index in discriminating cardio-metabolic risk factors in a sample of school-aged mexican children. Nutrients. 2018;10(12):1850.

    PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Sardinha LB, Santos DA, Silva AM, Grøntved A, Andersen LB, Ekelund U. A comparison between BMI, waist circumference, and waist-to-height ratio for identifying cardio-metabolic risk in children and adolescents. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(2):e0149351.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Hsieh SD, Yoshinaga H. Abdominal fat distribution and coronary heart disease risk factors in men-waist/height ratio as a simple and useful predictor. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1995;19(8):585–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Browning LM, Hsieh SD, Ashwell M. A systematic review of waist-to-height ratio as a screening tool for the prediction of cardiovascular disease and diabetes: 0.5 could be a suitable global boundary value. Nutr Res Rev. 2010;23(2):247–69.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Ochoa Sangrador C, Ochoa-Brezmes J. Waist-to-height ratio as a risk marker for metabolic syndrome in childhood. A meta-analysis Pediatr Obes. 2018;13(7):421–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Lo K, Wong M, Khalechelvam P, Tam W. Waist-to-height ratio, body mass index and waist circumference for screening paediatric cardio-metabolic risk factors: a meta-analysis. Obes Rev. 2016;17(12):1258–75.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Lichtenauer M, Wheatley SD, Martyn-St James M, Duncan MJ, Cobayashi F, Berg G, et al. Efficacy of anthropometric measures for identifying cardiovascular disease risk in adolescents: review and meta-analysis. Minerva Pediatr. 2018;70(4):371–82.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Weili Y, He B, Yao H, Dai J, Cui J, Ge D, et al. Waist-to-height ratio is an accurate and easier index for evaluating obesity in children and adolescents. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2007;15(3):748–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Zhou D, Yang M, Yuan ZP, Zhang DD, Liang L, Wang CL, et al. Waist-to-Height Ratio: a simple, effective and practical screening tool for childhood obesity and metabolic syndrome. Prev Med. 2014;67:35–40.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Ashwell M, Gunn P, Gibson S. Waist-to-height ratio is a better screening tool than waist circumference and BMI for adult cardiometabolic risk factors: systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Rev. 2012;13(3):275–86.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Jiang Y, Dou Y-L, Xiong F, Zhang L, Zhu G-H, Wu T, et al. Waist-to-height ratio remains an accurate and practical way of identifying cardiometabolic risks in children and adolescents. Acta Paediatr. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.14323.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Lee CM, Huxley RR, Wildman RP, Woodward M. Indices of abdominal obesity are better discriminators of cardiovascular risk factors than BMI: a meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(7):646–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Dou Y, Jiang Y, Yan Y, Chen H, Zhang Y, Chen X, et al. Waist-to-height ratio as a screening tool for cardiometabolic risk in children and adolescents: a nationwide cross-sectional study in China. BMJ Open. 2020;10(6):e037040.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Seo JY, Kim JH. Validation of surrogate markers for metabolic syndrome and cardiometabolic risk factor clustering in children and adolescents: a nationwide population-based study. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(10):e0186050.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Tompuri TT, Jaaskelainen J, Lindi V, Laaksonen DE, Eloranta AM, Viitasalo A, et al. Adiposity criteria in assessing increased cardiometabolic risk in prepubertal children. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2019;10:410.

    PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Arellano-Ruiz P, García-Hermoso A, García-Prieto JC, Sánchez-López M, Vizcaíno VM, Solera-Martínez M. Predictive ability of waist circumference and waist-to-height ratio for cardiometabolic risk screening among spanish children. Nutrients. 2020;12(2):415.

    CAS  PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Cristine Silva K, Santana Paiva N, de Rocha Faria F, Franceschini S, EloizaPiore S. Predictive ability of seven anthropometric indices for cardiovascular risk markers and metabolic syndrome in adolescents. J Adolesc Health. 2020;66(4):491–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Ashwell M, Gibson S. A proposal for a primary screening tool: “Keep your waist circumference to less than half your height.” BMC Med. 2014;12:207.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Bauer KW, Marcus MD, Elghormli L, Ogden CL, Foster GD. Cardio-metabolic risk screening among adolescents: understanding the utility of body mass index, waist circumference and waist to height ratio. Pediatr Obes. 2015;10(5):329–37.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529–36.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Dwamena, Ben. MIDAS: Stata module for meta-analytical integration of diagnostic test accuracy studies. https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:boc:bocode:s456880. Accessed 2009.

  29. 29.

    AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care. Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Zimmet P, Alberti G, Kaufman F, Tajima N, Silink M, Arslanian S, et al. The metabolic syndrome in children and adolescents. Lancet. 2007;369(9579):2059–61.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Alberti KG, Eckel RH, Grundy SM, Zimmet PZ, Cleeman JI, Donato KA, et al. Harmonising the metabolic syndrome: a joint interim statement of the International Diabetes Federation Task Force on Epidemiology and Prevention; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; American Heart Association; World Heart Federation; International Atherosclerosis Society; and International Association for the Study of Obesity. Circulation. 2009;120(16):1640–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Weihrauch-Blüher S, Schwarz P, Klusmann JH. Childhood obesity: increased risk for cardiometabolic disease and cancer in adulthood. Metabolism. 2019;92:147–52.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Naidoo S, Kagura J, Fabian J, Norris SA. Early life factors and longitudinal blood pressure trajectories are associated with elevated blood pressure in early adulthood. Hypertension. 2019;73(2):301–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Pires A, Sena C, Seiça R. Dyslipidemia and cardiovascular changes in children. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2016;31(1):95–100.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Nguyen QM, Srinivasan SR, Xu JH, Chen W, Berenson GS. Fasting plasma glucose levels within the normoglycemic range in childhood as a predictor of prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in adulthood: the Bogalusa Heart Study. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2010;164(2):124–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Camhi SM, Katzmarzyk PT. Tracking of cardiometabolic risk factor clustering from childhood to adulthood. Int J Pediatr Obes. 2010;5(2):122–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Berenson GS, Srinivasan SR, Bao W, Newman WP 3rd, Tracy RE, Wattigney WA. Association between multiple cardiovascular risk factors and atherosclerosis in children and young adults. The Bogalusa Heart Study. N Engl J Med. 1998;338(23):1650–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Benmohammed K, Valensi P, Benlatreche M, Nguyen MT, Benmohammed F, Paries J, et al. Anthropometric markers for detection of the metabolic syndrome in adolescents. Diabetes Metab. 2015;41(2):138–44.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    World Health Organization. Regional Office for the Western Pacific. The Asia-Pacific perspective: redefining obesity and its treatment. Sydney: Health Communications Australia. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/206936. Accessed 2000.

  40. 40.

    Rudolf MC, Walker J, Cole TJ. What is the best way to measure waist circumference? Int J Pediatr Obes. 2007;2(1):58–61.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Ross R, Berentzen T, Bradshaw AJ, Janssen I, Kahn HS, Katzmarzyk PT, et al. Does the relationship between waist circumference, morbidity and mortality depend on measurement protocol for waist circumference? Obes Rev. 2008;9(4):312–25.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Nan Zh, Cui L, Cui MH, Xu MH, Jin YH, Fang JN. Relationships of different types of obesity with metabolic syndrome and its components among Han-Chinese adolescents in Yanbian area. Chin J School Health. 2013;34(4):457–9 ((in Chinese)).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Hou YP, Yang L, Xi B. Comparison of the performance of waist circumference, waist-height ratio, and body mass index in predicting metabolic disorders among children and adolescents. Chin J Child Health Care. 2018;26(3):239–4257 (in Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Perona JS, Schmidt-RioValle J, Rueda-Medina B, Correa-Rodriguez M, Gonzalez-Jimenez E. Waist circumference shows the highest predictive value for metabolic syndrome, and waist-to-hip ratio for its components, in Spanish adolescents. Nutr Res. 2017;45:38–45.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Quadros TM, Gordia AP, Mota J, Silva LR. Utility of body mass index, waist circumference and waist-to-height ratio as screening tools for hyperglycemia in young people. Arch Endocrinol Metab. 2016;60(6):526–31.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Lopez-Gonzalez D, Miranda-Lora A, Klunder-Klunder M, Queipo-Garcia G, Bustos-Esquivel M, Paez-Villa M, et al. Diagnostic performance of waist circumference measurements for predicting cardiometabolic risk in Mexican children. Endocr Pract. 2016;22(10):1170–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Kruger HS, Faber M, Schutte AE, Ellis SM. A proposed cutoff point of waist-to-height ratio for metabolic risk in African township adolescents. Nutrition. 2013;29(3):502–7.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Xue J. The predictive effect of obesity-related indicators and blood pressure to height ratio on hypertension among urban school-age children. Shandong : Shandong University; 2014. (in Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Motswagole BS, Kruger HS, Faber M, van Rooyen JM, de Ridder JH. The sensitivity of waist-to-height ratio in identifying children with high blood pressure. Cardiovasc J Afr. 2011;22(4):208–11.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Kromeyer-Hauschild K, Neuhauser H, Schaffrath Rosario A, Schienkiewitz A. Abdominal obesity in German adolescents defined by waist-to-height ratio and its association to elevated blood pressure: the KiGGS study. Obes Facts. 2013;6(2):165–75.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Chiolero A, Paradis G, Maximova K, Burnier M, Bovet P. No use for waist-for-height ratio in addition to body mass index to identify children with elevated blood pressure. Blood Press. 2013;22(1):17–20.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Cheah WL, Chang CT, Hazmi H, Kho GWF. Using anthropometric indicator to identify hypertension in adolescents: a study in Sarawak. Malaysia Int J Hypertens. 2018;2018:6736251.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Meng Lh, Mi J. The validation of the classification criterion of waist and waist-to-height ratio for cardiometabolic risk factors in Chinese school-age children. Chin J Evid Based Pediatr. 2008;3(5):324–32 (in Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Christofaro DGD, Farah BQ, Vanderlei LCM, Delfino LD, Tebar WR, Barros MVG, et al. Analysis of different anthropometric indicators in the detection of high blood pressure in school adolescents: a cross-sectional study with 8295 adolescents. Braz J Phys Ther. 2018;22(1):49–54.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Ma CW, Liang YJ, Xi B. Comparison of the performance of waist circumference and waist-height ratio in predicting elevated blood pressure among children and adolescents. Chin J School Health. 2016;37(10):1445–8 (in Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Beck CC, Lopes Ada S, Pitanga FJ. Anthropometric indicators as predictors of high blood pressure in adolescents. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2011;96(2):126–33.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Wariri O, Jalo I, Bode-Thomas F. Discriminative ability of adiposity measures for elevated blood pressure among adolescents in a resource-constrained setting in northeast Nigeria: a cross-sectional analysis. BMC Obes. 2018;5:35.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Mishra PE, Shastri L, Thomas T, Duggan C, Bosch R, McDonald CM, et al. Waist-to-height ratio as an indicator of high blood pressure in urban indian school children. Indian Pediatr. 2015;52(9):773–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Liu Y, Mi J, Han W, Jin HF, Du JB. Analyse the indices of the screening test of hyperlipidemia by Logistic regression analysis and ROC study in children. Basic Clin Med. 2007;27(2):152–6 (in Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Zheng W, Zhao A, Xue Y, Zheng Y, Chen Y, Mu Z, et al. Gender and urban-rural difference in anthropometric indices predicting dyslipidemia in Chinese primary school children: a cross-sectional study. Lipids Health Dis. 2016;15:87.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Chen G, Yan H, Hao Y, Shrestha S, Wang J, Li Y, et al. Comparison of various anthropometric indices in predicting abdominal obesity in Chinese children: a cross-sectional study. BMC Pediatr. 2019;19(1):127.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Ejtahed HS, Kelishadi R, Qorbani M, Motlagh ME, Hasani-Ranjbar S, Angoorani P, et al. Utility of waist circumference-to-height ratio as a screening tool for generalised and central obesity among Iranian children and adolescents: The CASPIAN-V study. Pediatr Diabetes. 2019;20(5):530–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Dong B, Wang Z, Arnold LW, Song Y, Wang HJ, Ma J. Simplifying the screening of abdominal adiposity in Chinese children with waist-to-height ratio. Am J Hum Biol. 2016;28(6):945–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Fujita Y, Kouda K, Nakamura H, Iki M. Cut-off values of body mass index, waist circumference, and waist-to-height ratio to identify excess abdominal fat: population-based screening of Japanese school children. J Epidemiol. 2011;21(3):191–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Dai Y, Fu J, Liang L, Gong C, Xiong F, Liu G, et al. A proposal for the cutoff point of waist-to-height for the diagnosis of metabolic syndrome in children and adolescents in six areas of China. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi. 2014;35(8):882–5 (in Chinese).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Matsha TE, Kengne AP, Yako YY, Hon GM, Hassan MS, Erasmus RT. Optimal waist-to-height ratio values for cardiometabolic risk screening in an ethnically diverse sample of South African urban and rural school boys and girls. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(8):e71133.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Liu XL, Yin FZ, Ma CP, Gao GQ, Ma CM, Wang R, et al. Waist-to-height ratio as a screening measure for identifying adolescents with hypertriglyceridemic waist phenotype. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2015;28(9–10):1079–83.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Aguirre PF, Coca A, Aguirre MF, Celis G. Waist-to-height ratio and sedentary lifestyle as predictors of metabolic syndrome in children in Ecuador. Hipertens Riesgo Vasc. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hipert.2017.09.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Adegboye AR, Andersen LB, Froberg K, Sardinha LB, Heitmann BL. Linking definition of childhood and adolescent obesity to current health outcomes. Int J Pediatr Obes. 2010;5(2):130–42.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Ma CM, Yin FZ, Liu XL, Wang R, Lou DH, Lu Q. How to simplify the diagnostic criteria of metabolic syndrome in adolescents. Pediatr Neonatol. 2017;58(2):178–84.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Zhao M, Bovet P, Ma C, Xi B. Performance of different adiposity measures for predicting cardiovascular risk in adolescents. Sci Rep. 2017;7:43686.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Xu T, Liu J, Liu J, Zhu G, Han S. Relation between metabolic syndrome and body compositions among Chinese adolescents and adults from a large-scale population survey. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):337.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Oliveira RG, Guedes DP. Performance of anthropometric indicators as predictors of metabolic syndrome in Brazilian adolescents. BMC Pediatr. 2018;18(1):33.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Liu BY, Jiang Rh, Li P, Liu C, Li L. Cutoff waist-to-height and waist-to-hip ratios for metabolic syndrome in chinese children and adolescents. J China Med Univ. 2017;46(5):434–84 (in Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Arsang-Jang S, Kelishadi R, Esmail Motlagh M, Heshmat R, Mansourian M. Temporal trend of non-invasive method capacity for early detection of metabolic syndrome in children and adolescents: a bayesian multilevel analysis of pseudo-panel data. Ann Nutr Metab. 2019;75(1):55–65.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Vasquez F, Correa-Burrows P, Blanco E, Gahagan S, Burrows R. A waist-to-height ratio of 0.54 is a good predictor of metabolic syndrome in 16-year-old male and female adolescents. Pediatr Res. 2019;85(3):269–74.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Graves L, Garnett SP, Cowell CT, Baur LA, Ness A, Sattar N, et al. Waist-to-height ratio and cardiometabolic risk factors in adolescence: findings from a prospective birth cohort. Pediatr Obes. 2014;9(5):327–38.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Zhang Y, Hu J, Li Z, Li T, Chen M, Wu L, et al. A novel indicator of lipid accumulation product associated with metabolic syndrome in chinese children and adolescents. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2019;12:2075–83.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Yuan Y, Xie H, Sun L, Wang B, Zhang L, Han H, et al. A Novel indicator of children’s lipid accumulation product associated with impaired fasting glucose in Chinese children and adolescents. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2020;13:1653–60.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Wang Y, Liu W, Sun L, Zhang Y, Wang B, Yuan Y, et al. A novel indicator, childhood lipid accumulation product, is associated with hypertension in Chinese children and adolescents. Hypertens Res. 2020;43(4):305–12.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Tee JYH, Gan WY, Lim PY. Comparisons of body mass index, waist circumference, waist-to-height ratio and a body shape index (ABSI) in predicting high blood pressure among Malaysian adolescents: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2020;10(1):e032874.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Vaquero-Álvarez M, Molina-Luque R, Fonseca-Pozo FJ, Molina-Recio G, López-Miranda J, Romero-Saldaña M. Diagnostic Precision of Anthropometric Variables for the Detection of Hypertension in Children and Adolescents. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(12):4415.

    PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Li Y, Zou Z, Luo J, Ma J, Ma Y, Jing J, et al. The predictive value of anthropometric indices for cardiometabolic risk factors in Chinese children and adolescents: a national multicenter school-based study. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(1):e0227954.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Mai TMT, Gallegos D, Jones L, Tran QC, Tran TMH, van der Pols JC. The utility of anthopometric indicators to identify cardiovascular risk factors in Vietnamese children. Br J Nutr. 2020;123(9):1043–55.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Yazdi M, Assadi F, Qorbani M, Daniali SS, Heshmat R, Esmaeil Motlagh M, et al. Validity of anthropometric indices in predicting high blood pressure risk factors in Iranian children and adolescents: CASPIAN-V study. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2020;22(6):1009–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Kilinc A, Col N, Demircioglu-Kilic B, Aydin N, Balat A, Keskin M. Waist to height ratio as a screening tool for identifying childhood obesity and associated factors. Pak J Med Sci. 2019;35(6):1652–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to express ours thanks to Ms. Jun Xia, the Co-Director of Nottingham Ningbo GRADE Centre, Systematic Review and Clinical Practice Guideline Lead, from the University of Nottingham Ningbo for her contribution to the improvement in research methodology. Moreover, we would like to be grateful to all authors of the original studies we used for this meta-analysis.

Funding

This work was supported by the CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (grant number 2019-I2M-5-002); Shanghai Health Commission of Health Industry Clinical Research Project [grant number 20194Y0209]; and Shanghai School Physical Education Key Scientific Research Project [Grant Number HJTY-2018-B01].

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

YJ and YD are joint first authors. The two authors have contributed equally to the literature search, the underlying data verifying, data analysis, generation of tables and figures, and manuscript writing. MR, YZ, XC, and YW contributed to data interpretation and the manuscript review. WY conceptualised and designed the study, and obtained final approval from MR and HC. WY and YJ obtained funding. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Weili Yan.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

The search strategy used in PubMed of this work.

Additional file 2: Table S1.

Results of diagnostic test extracting from eligible original articles.

Additional file 3: Table S2.

Evaluation of the risk of bias and applicability of included studies by QUADAS-2.

Additional file 4: Table S3.

Other pooled results of WHtR screening for CMRs in children and adolescents.

Additional file 5: Figure S1-S14.

The forest plots of pooled sensitivities, specificities, and odd diagnostic ratios in discriminating CMRs.

Additional file 6: Table S4.

Pooled results of WHtR screening for CMRs by sex in children and adolescents.

Additional file 7: Table S5.

Pooled results of WHtR screening for CMRs in East-Asian children.

Additional file 8: Table S6.

Sensitivity analyses: pooled results of WHtR screening for clusters of CMR with identical components

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jiang, Y., Dou, Y., Chen, H. et al. Performance of waist-to-height ratio as a screening tool for identifying cardiometabolic risk in children: a meta-analysis. Diabetol Metab Syndr 13, 66 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13098-021-00688-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Cardiometabolic risk
  • Diagnostic test
  • Meta-analysis
  • Paediatric population
  • Waist-to-height ratio