Table 2.
Logistic regression analysis for the association of three IR indicators with ISH.
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | LLCI | ULCI | OR | LLCI | ULCI | OR | LLCI | ULCI | |
| Young men | |||||||||
| HOMA-IR | |||||||||
| T2 (1.57–2.54) | 1.143 | 0.726 | 1.798 | 0.953 | 0.591 | 1.536 | 1.201 | 0.691 | 2.090 |
| T3 (> 2.54) | 2.418** | 1.621 | 3.607 | 1.747* | 1.082 | 2.819 | 2.369** | 1.348 | 4.163 |
| TyG | |||||||||
| T2 (8.17–8.64) | 1.193 | 0.789 | 1.804 | 0.946 | 0.609 | 1.470 | 0.894 | 0.540 | 1.482 |
| T3 (> 8.64) | 1.572* | 1.061 | 2.331 | 0.887 | 0.545 | 1.446 | 0.781 | 0.442 | 1.381 |
| METS-IR | |||||||||
| T2 (30.68–36.18) | 1.303 | 0.828 | 2.049 | 1.002 | 0.605 | 1.659 | 0.945 | 0.533 | 1.675 |
| T3 (> 36.18) | 2.529** | 1.682 | 3.803 | 1.316 | 0.682 | 2.536 | 1.123 | 0.523 | 2.413 |
| Middle-aged men | |||||||||
| HOMA-IR | |||||||||
| T2 (1.54–2.45) | 1.355 | 0.944 | 1.945 | 1.104 | 0.756 | 1.612 | 1.081 | 0.701 | 1.667 |
| T3 (> 2.45) | 2.643** | 1.910 | 3.656 | 1.788** | 1.228 | 2.605 | 1.757* | 1.143 | 2.700 |
| TyG | |||||||||
| T2 (8.41–8.88) | 1.343 | 0.967 | 1.865 | 0.950 | 0.669 | 1.348 | 0.753 | 0.502 | 1.131 |
| T3 (> 8.88) | 1.686** | 1.231 | 2.311 | 0.913 | 0.626 | 1.333 | 0.800 | 0.517 | 1.237 |
| METS-IR | |||||||||
| T2 (32.6–37.8) | 1.747** | 1.221 | 2.499 | 1.286 | 0.853 | 1.938 | 1.517 | 0.942 | 2.442 |
| T3 (> 37.8) | 2.659** | 1.899 | 3.723 | 1.491 | 0.901 | 2.466 | 1.746 | 0.971 | 3.141 |
Model 1 was crude.
Model 2 was adjusted for abdominal obesity and non-alcoholic fatty liver.
Model 3 was adjusted for abdominal obesity, non-alcoholic fatty liver, hyperuricemia, smoking, and drinking.
OR Odds ratio, LLCI and ULCI lower level and upper level of 95% confidence interval, T tertile; the first tertile was used as the reference category, HOMA-IR homeostasis model assessment for IR index, TyG triglyceride glucose index, METS-IR metabolic score for IR; **< 0.01; *< 0.05.