Limits...
Measurement of waist and hip circumference with a body surface scanner: feasibility, validity, reliability, and correlations with markers of the metabolic syndrome.

Jaeschke L, Steinbrecher A, Pischon T - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: Additionally, MM were taken by trained personnel according to WHO guidelines.Body measures were higher in AM compared to MM but both measurements were strongly correlated (WC, men, difference = 1.5 cm, r = 0.97; women, d = 4.7 cm, r = 0.96; HC, men, d = 2.3 cm, r = 0.97; women, d = 3.0 cm; r = 0.98).Reliability was high for all AM (nearly all ICC>0.98).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Molecular Epidemiology Group, Max Delbrueck Center for Molecular Medicine (MDC), Berlin, Germany.

ABSTRACT

Objective: Body surface scanners (BS), which visualize a 3D image of the human body, facilitate the computation of numerous body measures, including height, waist circumference (WC) and hip circumference (HC). However, limited information is available regarding validity and reliability of these automated measurements (AM) and their correlation with parameters of the Metabolic Syndrome (MetS) compared to traditional manual measurements (MM).

Methods: As part of a cross-sectional feasibility study, AM of WC, HC and height were assessed twice in 60 participants using a 3D BS (VitussmartXXL). Additionally, MM were taken by trained personnel according to WHO guidelines. Participants underwent an interview, bioelectrical impedance analysis, and blood pressure measurement. Blood samples were taken to determine HbA1c, HDL-cholesterol, triglycerides, and uric acid. Validity was assessed based on the agreement between AM and MM, using Bland-Altman-plots, correlation analysis, and paired t-tests. Reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) based on two repeated AM. Further, we calculated age-adjusted Pearson correlation for AM and MM with fat mass, systolic blood pressure, HbA1c, HDL-cholesterol, triglycerides, and uric acid.

Results: Body measures were higher in AM compared to MM but both measurements were strongly correlated (WC, men, difference = 1.5 cm, r = 0.97; women, d = 4.7 cm, r = 0.96; HC, men, d = 2.3 cm, r = 0.97; women, d = 3.0 cm; r = 0.98). Reliability was high for all AM (nearly all ICC>0.98). Correlations of WC, HC, and the waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) with parameters of MetS were similar between AM and MM; for example the correlation of WC assessed by AM with HDL-cholesterol was r = 0.35 in men, and r = -0.48 in women, respectively whereas correlation of WC measured manually with HDL cholesterol was r = -0.41 in men, and r = -0.49 in women, respectively.

Conclusions: Although AM of WC, HC, and WHR are higher when compared to MM based on WHO guidelines, our data indicate good validity, excellent reliability, and similar correlations to parameters of the MetS.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Bland-Altman-plots for comparison between MM and AM body height (panel A), WC (panel B), HC (panel C), and WHR (panel D) for men (filled circle) and women (light circle).For WC, MM was compared to the corresponding AM waist-girth, for HC to the corresponding AM buttock-girth. AM WHR was calculated using the measures waist-girth and buttock-girth. Differences (Δ) between methods were calculated as AM-MM.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4352076&req=5

pone.0119430.g002: Bland-Altman-plots for comparison between MM and AM body height (panel A), WC (panel B), HC (panel C), and WHR (panel D) for men (filled circle) and women (light circle).For WC, MM was compared to the corresponding AM waist-girth, for HC to the corresponding AM buttock-girth. AM WHR was calculated using the measures waist-girth and buttock-girth. Differences (Δ) between methods were calculated as AM-MM.

Mentions: Comparing anthropometric measures acquired by AM and MM, we found strong correlations for height between the two methods (men, r = 0.98; women r = 0.99, Table 2). However, AM provided significantly larger body heights compared to MM (Fig. 2). The mean differences between the two methods were d = 0.6±0.9cm (p = 0.003) and d = 1.2±1.0cm (p<0.0001) for men and women, respectively. The within-person differences between the AM and the MM were not significantly correlated with the within-person means of AM and MM (men, r = -0.15; women, r = 0.31).


Measurement of waist and hip circumference with a body surface scanner: feasibility, validity, reliability, and correlations with markers of the metabolic syndrome.

Jaeschke L, Steinbrecher A, Pischon T - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bland-Altman-plots for comparison between MM and AM body height (panel A), WC (panel B), HC (panel C), and WHR (panel D) for men (filled circle) and women (light circle).For WC, MM was compared to the corresponding AM waist-girth, for HC to the corresponding AM buttock-girth. AM WHR was calculated using the measures waist-girth and buttock-girth. Differences (Δ) between methods were calculated as AM-MM.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4352076&req=5

pone.0119430.g002: Bland-Altman-plots for comparison between MM and AM body height (panel A), WC (panel B), HC (panel C), and WHR (panel D) for men (filled circle) and women (light circle).For WC, MM was compared to the corresponding AM waist-girth, for HC to the corresponding AM buttock-girth. AM WHR was calculated using the measures waist-girth and buttock-girth. Differences (Δ) between methods were calculated as AM-MM.
Mentions: Comparing anthropometric measures acquired by AM and MM, we found strong correlations for height between the two methods (men, r = 0.98; women r = 0.99, Table 2). However, AM provided significantly larger body heights compared to MM (Fig. 2). The mean differences between the two methods were d = 0.6±0.9cm (p = 0.003) and d = 1.2±1.0cm (p<0.0001) for men and women, respectively. The within-person differences between the AM and the MM were not significantly correlated with the within-person means of AM and MM (men, r = -0.15; women, r = 0.31).

Bottom Line: Additionally, MM were taken by trained personnel according to WHO guidelines.Body measures were higher in AM compared to MM but both measurements were strongly correlated (WC, men, difference = 1.5 cm, r = 0.97; women, d = 4.7 cm, r = 0.96; HC, men, d = 2.3 cm, r = 0.97; women, d = 3.0 cm; r = 0.98).Reliability was high for all AM (nearly all ICC>0.98).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Molecular Epidemiology Group, Max Delbrueck Center for Molecular Medicine (MDC), Berlin, Germany.

ABSTRACT

Objective: Body surface scanners (BS), which visualize a 3D image of the human body, facilitate the computation of numerous body measures, including height, waist circumference (WC) and hip circumference (HC). However, limited information is available regarding validity and reliability of these automated measurements (AM) and their correlation with parameters of the Metabolic Syndrome (MetS) compared to traditional manual measurements (MM).

Methods: As part of a cross-sectional feasibility study, AM of WC, HC and height were assessed twice in 60 participants using a 3D BS (VitussmartXXL). Additionally, MM were taken by trained personnel according to WHO guidelines. Participants underwent an interview, bioelectrical impedance analysis, and blood pressure measurement. Blood samples were taken to determine HbA1c, HDL-cholesterol, triglycerides, and uric acid. Validity was assessed based on the agreement between AM and MM, using Bland-Altman-plots, correlation analysis, and paired t-tests. Reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) based on two repeated AM. Further, we calculated age-adjusted Pearson correlation for AM and MM with fat mass, systolic blood pressure, HbA1c, HDL-cholesterol, triglycerides, and uric acid.

Results: Body measures were higher in AM compared to MM but both measurements were strongly correlated (WC, men, difference = 1.5 cm, r = 0.97; women, d = 4.7 cm, r = 0.96; HC, men, d = 2.3 cm, r = 0.97; women, d = 3.0 cm; r = 0.98). Reliability was high for all AM (nearly all ICC>0.98). Correlations of WC, HC, and the waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) with parameters of MetS were similar between AM and MM; for example the correlation of WC assessed by AM with HDL-cholesterol was r = 0.35 in men, and r = -0.48 in women, respectively whereas correlation of WC measured manually with HDL cholesterol was r = -0.41 in men, and r = -0.49 in women, respectively.

Conclusions: Although AM of WC, HC, and WHR are higher when compared to MM based on WHO guidelines, our data indicate good validity, excellent reliability, and similar correlations to parameters of the MetS.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus