Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Metabolic syndrome using three different definitions that apply waist circumference as primary criteria.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Physical characteristics and metabolic profile of all participants enrolled in the current study.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 1.

(a): Distribution of percentage body fat mass for participants classified as “obese” and “not obese” using general population (102 cm) and SCI specific (86.5 cm) cutoff points for WC. (b): Distribution of visceral adipose tissue cross-sectional area for participants classified as “centrally obese” and “not centrally obese” using general population (102 cm) and SCI specific (86.5 cm) cutoff points for WC. Data are presented using box plots. The optimal cutoff points (percentage body fat mass of 30% and visceral adipose tissue cross-sectional area of 100 cm2) are represented using black dotted lines.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 3.

Comparison of sensitivity, specificity, predictive and prevalence values for comparison of obesity using WC cutoff values (102 cm vs 86.cm) with respect to percentage body fat mass and visceral adipose tissue CSA.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Fig 2.

Prevalence of MetS for the three definitions using general population and SCI specific criteria listed in Table 1A and 1B respectively.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Distribution of triglycerides (TG), high density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C), and fasting blood glucose (FBG) level between those classified at risk “MetS” and “No MetS” using either general population (102 cm) or SCI specific (86.5 cm) cutoff points of WC.

(a): NCEP ATP III, (b): AHA, and (c): IDF. Δ is the mean difference between these variables for participants classified at risk and no risk (“MetS” and “No MetS”). P is the significance value for independent t-test used to determine the differences between groups for TG, HDL-C, and FBG for three definitions of MetS.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Table 4.

Cohen’s kappa (κ) agreement for three MetS definitions using different criteria.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 4.

(a): Distribution of FRS score for those classified at risk “CVD” and “No CVD” using either general population (102 cm) or SCI specific (86.5 cm) cutoff points of WC. (b): Association between FRS score and waist circumference.

More »

Fig 4 Expand