There are a number of definitions for MetS including IR-based and WC-based definitions, because of which the diagnostic power of these definitions of MetS in detection of poor HRQoL may differ. Therefore, the diagnostic impact of different definitions of MetS in detection of poor HRQoL as subjective measurement of health was further investigated. First, MetS was defined using four different WC-based definitions of MetS including the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP-ATP III), American Heart Association/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (AHA/NHLBI), the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) and the Joint Interim Statement (JIS). The findings indicated that in women, the highest rate of MetS was detected using AHA/NHLBI (47.0%) followed by the JIS (44.2%), NCEP-ATP III (42.4%) and IDF (40.3%) definitions. Whereas in men, the highest rate of MetS was detected by the JIS (51.9%), followed by IDF (51.3%), AHA/NHLBI (36.9%) and NCEP-ATP III (32.4%). The HRQoL subscale scores, using different definitions are provided in
Figure 3, as indicated, using all WC-based definitions, HRQoL scores were higher in men, compared to women. Poor HRQoL in physical and mental aspects were defined as the first tertile of PCS and MCS, respectively. Findings of logistic regression analysis indicated that ORs (95%CI) adjusted for age, physical activity, smoking, education and marital status for poor PCS using NCEP-ATP III, AHA/NHLBI, IDF and the JIS definitions were 1.20 (0.64 - 2.13), 1.20 (0.70 - 2.11), 1.0 (0.60 - 1.70) and 0.92 (0.53 - 1.60) in men and 1.70 (1.04 - 2.63), 1.51 (1.0 - 2.40), 1.92 (1.20 - 3.10) and 1.63 (1.02 - 2.60) in women respectively. In addition, adjusted ORs (95% CI) for MCS using NCEP-ATP III, AHA/NHLBI, IDF and JIS definitions were 0.82 (0.50 - 1.50), 0.90 (0.50 - 1.54), 1.30 (0.73 - 2.20) and 1.30 (0.73 - 2.20) in men and 1.20 (0.80 - 1.90), 1.0 (0.62 - 1.52), 0.90 (0.06 - 1.40) and 0.90 (0.60 - 1.40) in women respectively. In summary, all investigated definitions of MetS were similar in detection of poor physical and mental HRQoL; furthermore, except for the AHA/NHLBI definition, all other definitions of MetS investigated significantly detected poor physical HRQoL, only in women (
37).
Second, the diagnostic powers of different IR-based definitions of MetS including the World Health Organization (WHO), the European Group for the Study of Insulin Resistance (EGIR), and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) in detection of poor HRQoL were compared. In women, the highest rate of MetS was detected using the WHO definition (40.6%) followed by AACE (29.5%) and EGIR (25.5%). In men, the highest rate of MetS was detected by WHO (44.2%) followed by AACE (33.2%) and EGIR (25.8%); HRQoL subscale scores, using different IR-based definitions are presented in
Figure 4, as it is indicated, using all definitions, most of HRQoL scores were higher in men compared to women. Findings of logistic regression analysis indicated that ORs (95%CI) adjusted for age, smoking, education, marital status and menopause in women for poor PCS using WHO, EGIR and AACE definitions were 1.72 (0.88 - 3.35), 1.80 (0.69 - 4.69) and 1.95 (0.84 - 4.53) in men and 0.96 (0.57 - 1.60), 0.93 (0.48 - 1.81) and 1.01 (0.55 - 1.85) in women respectively. Adjusted ORs (95% CI) for detection of poor MCS using WHO, EGIR and AACE definitions were 0.75 (0.37 - 1.49), 0.93 (0.38 - 2.23) and 0.97 (0.41 - 2.28) in men and 0.89 (0.55 - 1.45), 0.97 (0.54 - 1.74) and 1.00 (0.56 - 1.79) in women respectively. In conclusion, as OR (95% CI) values indicated, none of (IR)-base definitions could detect poor physical and mental HRQoL in either gender (
20).