Dificultades en la clasificación del síndrome metabólico: El ejemplode los adolescentes en México Difficulties in the classification of metabolic syndrome: The example of adolescents in Mexico

OBJETIVO. Determinar la diferencia entre las definiciones del National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel (ATPIII) y de la International Diabetes Federation (IDF) para síndrome metabólico (SM) en adolescentes mexicanos. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS. Estudio transversal en 575 adolescentes...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Eneida Camarillo-Romero (Author), Ma Victoria Domínguez García (Author), Araceli Amaya-Chávez (Author), Gerardo Huitrón-Bravo (Author), Abraham Majluf-Cruz (Author)
Format: Book
Published: Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública, 2010-12-01T00:00:00Z.
Subjects:
Online Access:Connect to this object online.
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:OBJETIVO. Determinar la diferencia entre las definiciones del National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel (ATPIII) y de la International Diabetes Federation (IDF) para síndrome metabólico (SM) en adolescentes mexicanos. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS. Estudio transversal en 575 adolescentes de 14 a 16 años. Se utilizaron pruebas t de Student, ji cuadrada y correlación de Spearman. RESULTADOS. La prevalencia de SM fue mayor por ATPIII (18.6%) versus IDF (8.2%) (p<0.001), con 41.1% de concordancia. CONCLUSIONES. Existe una diferencia estadística de la prevalencia del SM en adolescentes mexicanos entre las dos definiciones.<br>OBJECTIVE. Determine the difference between the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel (ATPIII) definition of the diagnosis of metabolic syndrome (MS) in Mexican adolescents and that by the International Diabetes Federation (IDF). MATERIAL AND METHODS. We conducted a cross-sectional study of 575 adolescents aged 14 to 16 years using the student's t test, chi square and Spearman correlation. RESULTS. The prevalence of MS was higher by ATPIII (18.6%) than by IDF (8.2%) (p <0.001) and there was a concordance of 41.1%. CONCLUSIONS. There is a statistical difference in the prevalence of MS depending on the definition.
Item Description:0036-3634