Global regional variations in dyslipidemia prevalence underscore the need for an updated global overview of the magnitude of dyslipidemia over time. To estimate the global prevalence of dyslipidemia in adults, considering scientific evidence published in the last 20 years, while analyzing associated sociodemographic and geographic factors. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. The bibliographic search was performed in PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and EMBASE, including observational studies published between 2000 and 2025 that reported the prevalence of dyslipidemia components in general adult populations, including hypertriglyceridemia, hypercholesterolemia, hypoalphalipoproteinemia or low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels (< 40 mg/dL for men and < 50 mg/dL for women), and elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Statistical analyses included meta-analysis with random effects models, stratified analyses by sex and country, and meta-regression by publication year. A total of 206 studies were included, primarily cross-sectional (98.5%). The global prevalence was 28.8% for hypertriglyceridemia, 24.1% for hypercholesterolemia, 38.4% for low HDL-C, and 18.93% for high LDL-C. Men presented a higher prevalence of hypertriglyceridemia (33.8% vs. 24.5% in women), while women showed a higher frequency of low HDL-C (40.5% vs. 34.1% in men). The highest prevalences of low HDL-C and mixed dyslipidemia patterns were observed in the Middle East and Latin America. Temporal trends revealed a progressive increase in hypertriglyceridemia and low HDL-C, with a decrease in hypercholesterolemia and high LDL-C. There is an epidemiological transition in the dyslipidemia profile, from classic hypercholesterolemia toward a predominance of hypertriglyceridemia and low HDL-C, with important differences by sex and region. These findings significantly affect cardiovascular prevention and health policies addressing residual risk beyond LDL-C control.

Introduction: Given the high consumption of salt in the population, the need arises to have a validated tool that measures the knowledge, attitudes and practices of salt consumption (CAP-salt). Objective: To validate the questionnaire on CAP-salt. Methods: Psychometric study of content validity through expert judgment. A total of 5 physicians from different specialties were counted. To calculate the degree of agreement between the expert judges, Aiken's V was used. As a decision criterion to keep an item, a value ≥ 0.7 was considered. Results: In relation to clarity, V values greater than 0.80 were presented, in addition to a variation coefficient of less than 25%, therefore, none of the items was eliminated. Regarding coherence, they presented a coefficient of variation above 20% and V values greater than 0.71, confirming the decision not to exclude any of them. Regarding the relevance of the items, V values higher than 0.90 were also evidenced and neither did any of them present a value below the critical one. Conclusions: The questionnaire has presented sufficient evidence of content validity in terms of clarity, coherence and relevance of the items through the aforementioned analyses. For this reason, it should be used to quantify the KAP of different population groups in the country.

Obesity is a global public health epidemic with significant health implications. However, studies on the prevalence of obesity in Peru have yielded varied results, highlighting the need for updated data to inform effective public health policies. The primary objective of this study is to determine the prevalence of obesity in Peru using three anthropometric measures: body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR). Between March and April 2024, a systematic review of published studies reporting the prevalence of obesity in Peru was conducted. The databases Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, LILACS, and Scielo were Searched. Overall, the prevalence of obesity was 23.23 %, 38.90 %, and 81.53 % according to BMI, WC, and WHtR, respectively. However, these figures show wide variability, ranging from 13.10 % to 37.4 % according to BMI and from 19.4 % to 51.6 % according to WC. The highest reported prevalence of obesity by WHtR was 85.4 %. Nonetheless, only a fraction of these studies were published in the last five years, and few specifically focused on obesity as the primary objective. The prevalence of obesity in Peru varies significantly depending on the anthropometric measure used. To improve the collection and frequency of data on obesity in Peru, it is recommended that cut-off points be standardized to be suitable for the country and that annual national surveys specifically designed for this purpose be implemented.

Diabetes mellitus (DM) and prediabetes represent significant public health challenges in Peru, with prevalence rates showing considerable variation across recent epidemiological studies. To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the pooled prevalence of diabetes and prediabetes in Peru and identify temporal trends and sources of heterogeneity. A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, EMBASE and LILACS databases for studies reporting DM and prediabetes prevalence in Peru. Both national and subnational studies using standardized diagnostic criteria and representative sampling were included. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed, with subgroup analyses by sex, age and geographic scope. Meta-regression was conducted to explore temporal trends and sources of heterogeneity. Eight independent studies comprising 18,502 participants provided diabetes data, while five studies with 11,056 participants reported prediabetes data, spanning 2005–2018. The pooled DM prevalence was 7.47% (95% CI: 5.02–10.35%) and prediabetes prevalence was 10.66% (95% CI: 4.29–19.42%). Meta-regression revealed a significant increasing temporal trend for DM (p < 0.0001), with prevalence rising from 2.99% in 2005 to 16.97% in 2018. Substantial heterogeneity was observed for both conditions (I² = 98–99%). Diabetes and prediabetes prevalence in Peru have increased significantly over the past decade, reaching concerning levels that require urgent public health attention. The substantial heterogeneity observed emphasizes the need for standardized diagnostic protocols and more comprehensive national surveillance systems to accurately monitor these conditions and guide evidence-based prevention strategies.

Introduction: Several previous studies have provided evidence that obesity is a significant risk factor for the increase in prediabetes, but there are discrepancies regarding whether all the classic ways of measuring obesity, the body mass index (BMI), the waist circumference (WC) or the Waist to height ratio (WHtR) present the same level of risk. Objective: to carry out a systematic review (SR) with meta-analysis to determine the association between indicators of obesity and prediabetes. Methods: A systematic review (SR) with a meta-analysis of observational studies was performed. The search was conducted in four databases: Pubmed/Medline, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and EMBASE. Association measures were presented as odds ratios (OR), relative risk (RR), or hazard ratio (HR), together with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Results: Of the total number of manuscripts chosen, 12 had an analytical cross-sectional design, and 4 were cohort studies. For the cross-sectional studies, together they presented a statistically significant association for BMI (OR: 1.99; 95% CI 1.65 – 1.34), WC (OR: 1.41; 95% CI 1.30 – 1.54), and WHtR (OR: 2.47 IC 95 % 1.50 – 4.06). In the meta-analysis of the cohort studies, an association was found with WC (RR: 4.95; 95% CI 3.42 – 7.17) but not with BMI (HR: 1.22; 95% CI 0.81 – 1.85). There were no studies with WHtR. Conclusions: According to the results, considering cohort studies, WC could be the best risk indicator for prediabetes. There is a high degree of heterogeneity between the studies about the way obesity is measured, including the cut-off points used, so further longitudinal studies are needed to evaluate the association and confirm the results found.

Osteoporosis is a disease characterized by decreased bone mineral density and deterioration of bone microarchitecture, which increases fracture risk. In the context of various chronic pathologies, this condition may present an even higher prevalence, impacting morbidity, mortality, and healthcare burden. To synthesize and compare available evidence from systematic reviews on the prevalence of osteoporosis across different chronic diseases. An umbrella review following PRISMA guidelines was conducted, focusing on systematic reviews (with or without meta-analysis) reporting prevalence data of osteoporosis in adults with at least one chronic disease. Databases, including PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE, were searched, covering publications between 2009 and 2023, without language restrictions. Two independent reviewers performed study selection and data extraction, resolving discrepancies through consensus. A risk of bias assessment was conducted using the ROBIS tool. Prevalence estimates reported in each review were analyzed, classifying diseases according to the magnitude of the percentages found. Thirteen systematic reviews were evaluated (twelve included meta-analyses). The highest prevalence of osteoporosis was observed in patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (up to 36.8%) and diabetes mellitus (approximately 27.7%). Other conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, liver cirrhosis, and celiac disease, showed variable prevalence but were equally relevant in clinical terms. Methodological heterogeneity, both in diagnostic criteria and populations, was a notable factor. The results highlight the need for systematic assessment of bone health in patients with chronic diseases, particularly those with a higher prevalence of osteoporosis. These findings underscore the importance of timely screening strategies and multidisciplinary approaches to prevent fractures and optimize comprehensive care. Not applicable.