| Literature DB >> 26559605 |
Maria Izabel Siqueira de Andrade1, Juliana Souza Oliveira2, Vanessa Sá Leal2, Niedja Maria da Silva Lima2, Emília Chagas Costa2, Nathalia Barbosa de Aquino2, Pedro Israel Cabral de Lira2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify cutoff points of the Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) index established for adolescents and discuss their applicability for the diagnosis of insulin resistance in Brazilian adolescents. DATA SOURCE: A systematic review was performed in the PubMed, Lilacs and SciELO databases, using the following descriptors: "Adolescents", "insulin resistance" and "ROC curve". Original articles carried out with adolescents published between 2005 and 2015 in Portuguese, English or Spanish languages, which included the statistical analysis using ROC curve to determine the index cutoff (HOMA-IR) were included. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 184 articles were identified and after the study phases were applied, seven articles were selected for the review. All selected studies established their cutoffs using a ROC curve, with the lowest observed cutoff of 1.65 for girls and 1.95 for boys and the highest of 3.82 for girls and 5.22 for boys. Of the studies analyzed, one proposed external validity, recommending the use of the HOMA-IR cutoff >2.5 for both genders.Entities:
Keywords: Adolescent; Adolescente; Curva ROC; Insulin resistance; ROC curve; Resistência à insulina; Review; Revisão
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26559605 PMCID: PMC4917276 DOI: 10.1016/j.rpped.2015.08.006
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rev Paul Pediatr ISSN: 0103-0582
Figure 1Flowchart of the process of identification and selection of articles included in the systematic review of HOMA-IR index cutoff points in adolescents.
Characteristics, score and quality percentage of articles selected for inclusion in the systematic review.
| Study author, year and location | Sample size | Study type | Score | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yin J et al., 2013, Beijing/China | 3203 | Cross-sectional, cohort nested | 18.5 | 84.0 |
| Burrows R et al., 2015, Santiago/Chile | 667 | Cross-sectional, cohort nested | 17.5 | 79.5 |
| Kurtoglu S et al., 2010, Kayseri/Turkey | 268 | Cross-sectional in Pediatrics area | 16.1 | 73.2 |
| Singh Y et al., 2013, Delhi/India | 691 | Cross-sectional, cohort nested | 14.3 | 65.0 |
| Rocco ER et al., 2011, São Paulo/Brazil | 319 | School-based cross-sectional | 14.0 | 63.6 |
| Tresaco B et al., 2005, Zaragoza/Spain | 140 | School-based cross-sectional | 12.7 | 57.7 |
| Keskin M et al., 2005, Kayseri/Turkey | 57 | Cross-sectional in Pediatrics area | 10.0 | 45.4 |
Article quality assessment according to the criteria of Strengthening the Reporting of observational Studies in Epidemiology (Strobe).
Sample characteristics and Homeostasis Model Assessment-Insulin Resistance index cutoff points established for adolescents in studies selected for inclusion in the systematic review.
| Author | Sample characteristics | HOMA-IR | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yin J et al. | Sample: population with and without MS | 2.3 (Total) | 80.0% (Total) | 66.0% (Total) |
| Age range: 6-18 years ( | 2.6 (Pubertal) | 78.0% (Pubertal) | 67.0% (Pubertal) | |
| BMI ( | ||||
| SMS: 66.1% pubertal | ||||
| Prevalence of IR (HOMA-IR): 17.9% (Normal weight)/47.7% (Overweight)/63.2% (Obese) | ||||
| Burrows R et al. | Sample: healthy population | 2.6 | 59.0% | 87.0% |
| Age range: 16-17 years ( | ||||
| BMI ( | ||||
| Prevalence of obesity: 16.2% | ||||
| SMS: sample at the age range indicative of pubertal/post-pubertal adolescents | ||||
| Prevalence of IR (HOMA-IR): 16.3% | ||||
| Kurtoglu S et al. | Sample: obese population (100.0%) | 3.82 (Pubertal girls) | 77.1% (Pubertal girls) | 71.4% (Pubertal girls) |
| Age range: 5-18 years | 5.22 (Pubertal boys) | 56.0% (Pubertal boys) | 93.3% (Pubertal boys) | |
| BMI ( | ||||
| SMS: 69.4% pubertal | ||||
| Prevalence of IR (OGTT): 66.7% (Girls) and 61.7% (Boys) | ||||
| Singh Y et al. | Sample: healthy population | 2.5 | >70.0% | >60.0% |
| Age range: 10-17 years | ||||
| BMI ( | ||||
| Prevalence of OW/Obesity: 59.0% | ||||
| SMS: 86.1% pubertal | ||||
| Prevalence of IR (HOMA-IR): 19.7% (Normal weight)/51.7% (Overweight)/77.0% (Obese) | ||||
| Rocco ER et al. | Sample: healthy population | 1.65 (Girls) | 70.6% (Girls) | 55.8% (Girls) |
| Age range: 10-19 years | 1.95 (Boys) | 90.0% (Boys) | 77.3% (Boys) | |
| BMI ( | ||||
| SMS ( | ||||
| Prevalence of IR (Percentiles of HOMA-IR): 24.0% | ||||
| Tresaco B et al. | Sample: population with and without MS | Close to 3.0 | Ranging from 65.0% to 87.0% | Ranging from 64.0% to 91.0% |
| Age range: 7-16 years | ||||
| Prevalence of obesity: 48.0% | ||||
| *SMS and prevalence of IR: not available | ||||
| Keskin M et al. | Sample: obese population (100.0%) | 3.16 | 76.0% | 66.0% |
| Age ( | ||||
| BMI ( | ||||
| Prevalence of IR (OGTT): 44.0% | ||||
| *SMS: not available |
SMS, sexual maturation stage; OW, overweight; HOMA-IR, Homeostasis Model Assessment-Insulin Resistance; IR, insulin resistance; MS, metabolic syndrome; OGTT, oral glucose tolerance test; x±SD, mean±standard deviation.
Main methodological limitations and external validation of the studies selected for inclusion in the systematic review.
| Author | Main methodological limitations | External validation |
|---|---|---|
| Yin J et al. | Lack of standardization of insulin detection methods, lack of comparison by euglycemic clamp and cross-sectional study. | Study carried out with Chinese adolescents, it is not possible to extrapolate the results to other ethnicities. |
| Burrows R et al. | Sample is not representative, cross-sectional study. | The cutoff is applicable in clinical practice. |
| Kurtoglu S et al. | Small sample size interfered in determining precise cutoff points, lack of comparison by euglycemic clamp, cross-sectional study. | Small sample size, it is not possible to extrapolate the results. |
| Singh Y et al. | Absence of longitudinal monitoring and comparison by the euglycemic clamp. | The cutoff point is applicable because it was obtained from a large cohort with a homogeneous sample of normal and obese individuals. |
| Rocco ER et al. | Lack of standardization of insulin detection methods, absence of comparison by euglycemic clamp and cross-sectional study. | The obtained data can be applied to detect a set of cardiometabolic changes. |
| Tresaco B et al. | Determination of a set of approximated cutoff points without establishing a single cutoff, no comparison by euglycemic clamp, cross-sectional study without considering SMS and gender to determine the cutoffs. | Restricted to the Pediatrics area. They should not be used with the general population in epidemiological studies |
| Keskin M et al. | Cross-sectional study, small sample size, absence of comparison by euglycemic clamp, without considering SMS and gender to determine the cutoffs. | No information |
SMS, sexual maturation stage.