The performance of anthropometric tools to determine obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis
The aim of this systematic review was to assess the performance of anthropometric tools to determine obesity in the general population (CRD42018086888). Our review included 32 studies. To detect obesity with body mass index (BMI), the meta-analyses rendered a sensitivity of 51.4% (95% CI 38.5–64.2%)...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Scientific reports 2020-07, Vol.10 (1), p.12699-12699, Article 12699 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 12699 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 12699 |
| container_title | Scientific reports |
| container_volume | 10 |
| creator | Sommer, Isolde Teufer, Birgit Szelag, Monika Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara Titscher, Viktoria Klerings, Irma Gartlehner, Gerald |
| description | The aim of this systematic review was to assess the performance of anthropometric tools to determine obesity in the general population (CRD42018086888). Our review included 32 studies. To detect obesity with body mass index (BMI), the meta-analyses rendered a sensitivity of 51.4% (95% CI 38.5–64.2%) and a specificity of 95.4% (95% CI 90.7–97.8%) in women, and 49.6% (95% CI 34.8–64.5%) and 97.3% (95% CI 92.1–99.1%), respectively, in men. For waist circumference (WC), the summary estimates for the sensitivity were 62.4% (95% CI 49.2–73.9%) and 88.1% for the specificity (95% CI 77.0–94.2%) in men, and 57.0% (95% CI 32.2–79.0%) and 94.8% (95% CI 85.8–98.2%), respectively, in women. The data were insufficient to pool the results for waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) but were similar to BMI and WC. In conclusion, BMI and WC have serious limitations for use as obesity screening tools in clinical practice despite their widespread use. No evidence supports that WHR and WHtR are more suitable than BMI or WC to assess body fat. However, due to the lack of more accurate and feasible alternatives, BMI and WC might still have a role as initial tools for assessing individuals for excess adiposity until new evidence emerges. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1038/s41598-020-69498-7 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7391719</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2428279118</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c522t-433b82bcaa9af5ee3c41848a021c6678dfb7b2f4b93fbd4ebd6aa43e556735443</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU9v1DAQxS1ERaulX4ADitQLl4D_JjYHJFS1gFSJS3u2xs6k6yqJF9vbar99TbeUlgM-2CPN7z3P6BHyjtGPjAr9KUumjG4pp21nZK36V-SIU6laLjh__aw-JMc539B6FDeSmTfkUPCea6roEfGXa2w2mMaYZlg8NnFsYCnrFDdxxpKCb0qMU653M2DBNIelQg5zKLvPDTR5lwvOUCqY8DbgXZUPTZVCCwtMuxzyW3IwwpTx-PFdkavzs8vT7-3Fz28_Tr9etF5xXlophNPceQADo0IUXjItNVDOfNf1ehhd7_gonRGjGyS6oQOQApXqeqGkFCvyZe-72boZB49LSTDZTQozpJ2NEOzLzhLW9jre2l4Y1jNTDT48GqT4a4u52Dlkj9MEC8ZttlxyQ5XuBK3oyT_oTdymuvADpXlvGNOV4nvKp5hzwvFpGEbt7xjtPkZbY7QPMdZZVuT98zWeJH9Cq4DYA7m2lmtMf__-j-096feqnA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2428279118</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The performance of anthropometric tools to determine obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><source>Open Access: DOAJ - Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Open Access: Nature Open Access</source><source>SpringerOpen</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>PubMed Central（OA）</source><source>Free E-Journal (出版社公開部分のみ）</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Sommer, Isolde ; Teufer, Birgit ; Szelag, Monika ; Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara ; Titscher, Viktoria ; Klerings, Irma ; Gartlehner, Gerald</creator><creatorcontrib>Sommer, Isolde ; Teufer, Birgit ; Szelag, Monika ; Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara ; Titscher, Viktoria ; Klerings, Irma ; Gartlehner, Gerald</creatorcontrib><description>The aim of this systematic review was to assess the performance of anthropometric tools to determine obesity in the general population (CRD42018086888). Our review included 32 studies. To detect obesity with body mass index (BMI), the meta-analyses rendered a sensitivity of 51.4% (95% CI 38.5–64.2%) and a specificity of 95.4% (95% CI 90.7–97.8%) in women, and 49.6% (95% CI 34.8–64.5%) and 97.3% (95% CI 92.1–99.1%), respectively, in men. For waist circumference (WC), the summary estimates for the sensitivity were 62.4% (95% CI 49.2–73.9%) and 88.1% for the specificity (95% CI 77.0–94.2%) in men, and 57.0% (95% CI 32.2–79.0%) and 94.8% (95% CI 85.8–98.2%), respectively, in women. The data were insufficient to pool the results for waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) but were similar to BMI and WC. In conclusion, BMI and WC have serious limitations for use as obesity screening tools in clinical practice despite their widespread use. No evidence supports that WHR and WHtR are more suitable than BMI or WC to assess body fat. However, due to the lack of more accurate and feasible alternatives, BMI and WC might still have a role as initial tools for assessing individuals for excess adiposity until new evidence emerges.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2045-2322</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2045-2322</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-69498-7</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32728050</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Nature Publishing Group UK</publisher><subject>692/700/2817 ; 692/700/459 ; Adipose tissue ; Anthropometry - methods ; Body fat ; Body Mass Index ; Body measurements ; Female ; Humanities and Social Sciences ; Humans ; Male ; Meta-analysis ; multidisciplinary ; Obesity ; Obesity - diagnosis ; Performance assessment ; Reviews ; Science ; Science (multidisciplinary) ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Systematic review ; Waist-Height Ratio ; Waist-Hip Ratio</subject><ispartof>Scientific reports, 2020-07, Vol.10 (1), p.12699-12699, Article 12699</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2020</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2020. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c522t-433b82bcaa9af5ee3c41848a021c6678dfb7b2f4b93fbd4ebd6aa43e556735443</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c522t-433b82bcaa9af5ee3c41848a021c6678dfb7b2f4b93fbd4ebd6aa43e556735443</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7391719/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7391719/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,27924,27925,41120,42189,51576,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32728050$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sommer, Isolde</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Teufer, Birgit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Szelag, Monika</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Titscher, Viktoria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klerings, Irma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gartlehner, Gerald</creatorcontrib><title>The performance of anthropometric tools to determine obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><title>Scientific reports</title><addtitle>Sci Rep</addtitle><addtitle>Sci Rep</addtitle><description>The aim of this systematic review was to assess the performance of anthropometric tools to determine obesity in the general population (CRD42018086888). Our review included 32 studies. To detect obesity with body mass index (BMI), the meta-analyses rendered a sensitivity of 51.4% (95% CI 38.5–64.2%) and a specificity of 95.4% (95% CI 90.7–97.8%) in women, and 49.6% (95% CI 34.8–64.5%) and 97.3% (95% CI 92.1–99.1%), respectively, in men. For waist circumference (WC), the summary estimates for the sensitivity were 62.4% (95% CI 49.2–73.9%) and 88.1% for the specificity (95% CI 77.0–94.2%) in men, and 57.0% (95% CI 32.2–79.0%) and 94.8% (95% CI 85.8–98.2%), respectively, in women. The data were insufficient to pool the results for waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) but were similar to BMI and WC. In conclusion, BMI and WC have serious limitations for use as obesity screening tools in clinical practice despite their widespread use. No evidence supports that WHR and WHtR are more suitable than BMI or WC to assess body fat. However, due to the lack of more accurate and feasible alternatives, BMI and WC might still have a role as initial tools for assessing individuals for excess adiposity until new evidence emerges.</description><subject>692/700/2817</subject><subject>692/700/459</subject><subject>Adipose tissue</subject><subject>Anthropometry - methods</subject><subject>Body fat</subject><subject>Body Mass Index</subject><subject>Body measurements</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humanities and Social Sciences</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>multidisciplinary</subject><subject>Obesity</subject><subject>Obesity - diagnosis</subject><subject>Performance assessment</subject><subject>Reviews</subject><subject>Science</subject><subject>Science (multidisciplinary)</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Waist-Height Ratio</subject><subject>Waist-Hip Ratio</subject><issn>2045-2322</issn><issn>2045-2322</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU9v1DAQxS1ERaulX4ADitQLl4D_JjYHJFS1gFSJS3u2xs6k6yqJF9vbar99TbeUlgM-2CPN7z3P6BHyjtGPjAr9KUumjG4pp21nZK36V-SIU6laLjh__aw-JMc539B6FDeSmTfkUPCea6roEfGXa2w2mMaYZlg8NnFsYCnrFDdxxpKCb0qMU653M2DBNIelQg5zKLvPDTR5lwvOUCqY8DbgXZUPTZVCCwtMuxzyW3IwwpTx-PFdkavzs8vT7-3Fz28_Tr9etF5xXlophNPceQADo0IUXjItNVDOfNf1ehhd7_gonRGjGyS6oQOQApXqeqGkFCvyZe-72boZB49LSTDZTQozpJ2NEOzLzhLW9jre2l4Y1jNTDT48GqT4a4u52Dlkj9MEC8ZttlxyQ5XuBK3oyT_oTdymuvADpXlvGNOV4nvKp5hzwvFpGEbt7xjtPkZbY7QPMdZZVuT98zWeJH9Cq4DYA7m2lmtMf__-j-096feqnA</recordid><startdate>20200729</startdate><enddate>20200729</enddate><creator>Sommer, Isolde</creator><creator>Teufer, Birgit</creator><creator>Szelag, Monika</creator><creator>Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara</creator><creator>Titscher, Viktoria</creator><creator>Klerings, Irma</creator><creator>Gartlehner, Gerald</creator><general>Nature Publishing Group UK</general><general>Nature Publishing Group</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20200729</creationdate><title>The performance of anthropometric tools to determine obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><author>Sommer, Isolde ; Teufer, Birgit ; Szelag, Monika ; Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara ; Titscher, Viktoria ; Klerings, Irma ; Gartlehner, Gerald</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c522t-433b82bcaa9af5ee3c41848a021c6678dfb7b2f4b93fbd4ebd6aa43e556735443</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>692/700/2817</topic><topic>692/700/459</topic><topic>Adipose tissue</topic><topic>Anthropometry - methods</topic><topic>Body fat</topic><topic>Body Mass Index</topic><topic>Body measurements</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humanities and Social Sciences</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>multidisciplinary</topic><topic>Obesity</topic><topic>Obesity - diagnosis</topic><topic>Performance assessment</topic><topic>Reviews</topic><topic>Science</topic><topic>Science (multidisciplinary)</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Waist-Height Ratio</topic><topic>Waist-Hip Ratio</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sommer, Isolde</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Teufer, Birgit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Szelag, Monika</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Titscher, Viktoria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klerings, Irma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gartlehner, Gerald</creatorcontrib><collection>SpringerOpen</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health and Medical</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Journals</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Scientific reports</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sommer, Isolde</au><au>Teufer, Birgit</au><au>Szelag, Monika</au><au>Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara</au><au>Titscher, Viktoria</au><au>Klerings, Irma</au><au>Gartlehner, Gerald</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The performance of anthropometric tools to determine obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>Scientific reports</jtitle><stitle>Sci Rep</stitle><addtitle>Sci Rep</addtitle><date>2020-07-29</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>10</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>12699</spage><epage>12699</epage><pages>12699-12699</pages><artnum>12699</artnum><issn>2045-2322</issn><eissn>2045-2322</eissn><abstract>The aim of this systematic review was to assess the performance of anthropometric tools to determine obesity in the general population (CRD42018086888). Our review included 32 studies. To detect obesity with body mass index (BMI), the meta-analyses rendered a sensitivity of 51.4% (95% CI 38.5–64.2%) and a specificity of 95.4% (95% CI 90.7–97.8%) in women, and 49.6% (95% CI 34.8–64.5%) and 97.3% (95% CI 92.1–99.1%), respectively, in men. For waist circumference (WC), the summary estimates for the sensitivity were 62.4% (95% CI 49.2–73.9%) and 88.1% for the specificity (95% CI 77.0–94.2%) in men, and 57.0% (95% CI 32.2–79.0%) and 94.8% (95% CI 85.8–98.2%), respectively, in women. The data were insufficient to pool the results for waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) but were similar to BMI and WC. In conclusion, BMI and WC have serious limitations for use as obesity screening tools in clinical practice despite their widespread use. No evidence supports that WHR and WHtR are more suitable than BMI or WC to assess body fat. However, due to the lack of more accurate and feasible alternatives, BMI and WC might still have a role as initial tools for assessing individuals for excess adiposity until new evidence emerges.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Nature Publishing Group UK</pub><pmid>32728050</pmid><doi>10.1038/s41598-020-69498-7</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 2045-2322 |
| ispartof | Scientific reports, 2020-07, Vol.10 (1), p.12699-12699, Article 12699 |
| issn | 2045-2322 2045-2322 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7391719 |
| source | Open Access: DOAJ - Directory of Open Access Journals; Open Access: Nature Open Access; SpringerOpen; MEDLINE; PubMed Central（OA）; Free E-Journal (出版社公開部分のみ）; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | 692/700/2817 692/700/459 Adipose tissue Anthropometry - methods Body fat Body Mass Index Body measurements Female Humanities and Social Sciences Humans Male Meta-analysis multidisciplinary Obesity Obesity - diagnosis Performance assessment Reviews Science Science (multidisciplinary) Sensitivity and Specificity Systematic review Waist-Height Ratio Waist-Hip Ratio |
| title | The performance of anthropometric tools to determine obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T08%3A22%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20performance%20of%20anthropometric%20tools%20to%20determine%20obesity:%20a%20systematic%20review%20and%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=Scientific%20reports&rft.au=Sommer,%20Isolde&rft.date=2020-07-29&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=12699&rft.epage=12699&rft.pages=12699-12699&rft.artnum=12699&rft.issn=2045-2322&rft.eissn=2045-2322&rft_id=info:doi/10.1038/s41598-020-69498-7&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2428279118%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2428279118&rft_id=info:pmid/32728050&rfr_iscdi=true |