Validation of a non-laboratorial questionnaire to identify Metabolic Syndrome among a population in central Mexico

• Published in: Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública
• Main Authors: Leonardo M. Porchia, Beatriz Lara-Solis, Enrique Torres-Rasgado, M. Elba Gonzalez-Mejia, Guadalupe Ruiz-Vivanco, Ricardo Pérez-Fuentes
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English; Spanish; Portuguese
• Published: Pan American Health Organization 2019
• Subjects: Metabolic syndrome; diagnosis; surveys and questionnaires; noncommunicable diseases; Mexico; Medicine; R; Arctic medicine. Tropical medicine; RC955-962; Public aspects of medicine; RA1-1270; Arctic
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.26633/RPSP.2019.9; https://doaj.org/article/9d7eea2962a044c89a79fb11e9598cb2

Objective. To determine the reliability of a non-laboratorial questionnaire, the Encuesta de Identificación de Sujetos Metabólicamente Comprometidos en Fase-I (ESF-I) for identifying Metabolic Syndrome among a population in central Mexico. Methods. Clinical and biochemical parameters were collected for 232 participants from 1 June 2012 – 31 August 2013. Three definitions of Metabolic Syndrome (Harmonizing, National Cholesterol Education Program Expert Panel and Adult Treatment Panel III [ATPIII], and International Diabetes Federation [IDF]) were used to allocate subjects to either the normal or Metabolic Syndrome positive (MetS+) group. The predictability of the questionnaire was determined by the Area-Under-the-Receiver-Operating Characteristic curve (AUC). Youden's index was calculated and the highest score was considered the optimal cutoff value. Cohen´s kappa (κ) was calculated to determine the level of agreement between the ESF-I questionnaire (max score: 15 based on 15 items) and Metabolic Syndrome. Results. From 53.8% – 60.7% of the participants were determined to be MetS+. The average questionnaire score was significantly higher in the MetS+ group for each definition (4.0 vs. 8.0, P < 0.05). The ESF-I questionnaire was predictive for the Harmonizing definition (AUC = 0.841, 95%CI: 0.790 – 0.892), the ATPIII definition (AUC = 0.827, 95%CI: 0.774 – 0.880), and the IDF definition (AUC = 0.836, 95%CI: 0.785 – 0.887). A cutoff value of 7 was determined for each definition; therefore, the cohort was re-categorized based on questionnaire results. There was a strong agreement between the ESF-I questionnaire and MetS (Harmonizing: accuracy = 77.6%, κ = 0.554; ATPIII: accuracy = 74.1%, κ = 0.489; IDF: accuracy = 74.6%, κ = 0.495, P < 0.001). Conclusion. The ESF-I questionnaire can identify MetS+ patients, and therefore, lead to earlier diagnoses, reduced number of consultations, and lower costs with easier application.