Sex-Specific Differences in Metabolic Syndrome Classification Using IDF Versus NCEP-ATP III Criteria: A Systematic Review and Head-to-Head Meta-Analysis
Related Experiment Videos
Phuong Minh Bui Thi1, Tien Van Nguyen2, Dat Minh Le3
1Department of Biochemistry, Thai Binh University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Tran Lam Ward, Hung Yen 06122, Vietnam.
Abstract:
Background/Objectives: Metabolic syndrome (MetS) classification varies between the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) and National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP-ATP III) definitions. We compared their same-sample classification yield by sex. Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus were searched from database inception through 30 August 2026, with reference-list screening and citation tracking. Eligible observational studies assessed both definitions in the same adult sample; intervention-effect reports without an eligible observational comparison were outside the scope. One reviewer performed selection, extraction, and JBI-based appraisal. Random-effects models pooled sex-specific prevalence and prevalence ratios; revised ATP III was examined in sensitivity analysis. The review was not registered. Results: Seven studies (95,887 participants) were included; five (74,399 participants; 36,033 men and 38,366 women) contributed to the primary meta-analysis. The pooled IDF/NCEP-ATP III prevalence ratio was 0.95 (95% CI 0.65-1.37) in men and 1.15 (1.01-1.31) in women. Sensitivity estimates were 0.91 (0.70-1.19) and 1.08 (0.92-1.27), respectively. Heterogeneity was extreme (I2 92.3-99.9%). Three primary studies were conducted in Asian countries and represented 89.1% of primary-analysis participants. Conclusions: No clear pooled difference was observed in men; the modest female excess under IDF attenuated in sensitivity analysis. Five independent studies, extreme heterogeneity, and geographically concentrated samples limit robustness and generalizability. The findings provide a hypothesis-generating evidence summary, not proof of diagnostic equivalence, biological mechanisms, prognostic superiority, or treatment benefit. Definition-specific and sex-stratified reporting is warranted. No external funding was received.