Elizabeth A Spencer1, Andrew W Roddam, Timothy J Key. 1. Cancer Research UK Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford OX2 6HE, UK. elizabeth.spencer@cancer.org.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of self-reported waist and hip circumferences and the waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) by comparison with measured waist and hip circumferences and WHR in a sample of middle-aged men and women. DESIGN: Analysis of measured and self-reported waist and hip data from participants in the Oxford cohort of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-Oxford). PARTICIPANTS: Four thousand four hundred and ninety-two British men and women aged 35-76 years. RESULTS: Spearman's rank correlation coefficients between measured and self-reported waist, hip and WHR were 0.80, 0.74 and 0.44, respectively, for men and 0.83, 0.86 and 0.62 for women. Waist was underestimated, on average, by 3.1 (standard deviation (SD) 5.6) cm in men and 1.9 (SD 5.4) cm in women. The extent of underestimation was greater in participants with larger waists, older participants and women with greater body mass index (BMI). Hip was underestimated by a mean of 1.8 (SD 4.9) cm in men and 1.2 (SD 4.5) cm in women; the extent of underestimation was greater in participants with larger hip circumference and older participants. On average, WHR was underestimated by less than 2% by men and women; the extent of underestimation was greater among those with larger WHR, older people and those with greater BMI. Using self-reported values, the proportion of classification to the correct tertile was over 65% for waist and hip measurements. For WHR this proportion was 50% among men and 60% among women. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported waist and hip measurements in EPIC-Oxford are sufficiently accurate for identifying relationships in epidemiological studies.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of self-reported waist and hip circumferences and the waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) by comparison with measured waist and hip circumferences and WHR in a sample of middle-aged men and women. DESIGN: Analysis of measured and self-reported waist and hip data from participants in the Oxford cohort of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-Oxford). PARTICIPANTS: Four thousand four hundred and ninety-two British men and women aged 35-76 years. RESULTS: Spearman's rank correlation coefficients between measured and self-reported waist, hip and WHR were 0.80, 0.74 and 0.44, respectively, for men and 0.83, 0.86 and 0.62 for women. Waist was underestimated, on average, by 3.1 (standard deviation (SD) 5.6) cm in men and 1.9 (SD 5.4) cm in women. The extent of underestimation was greater in participants with larger waists, older participants and women with greater body mass index (BMI). Hip was underestimated by a mean of 1.8 (SD 4.9) cm in men and 1.2 (SD 4.5) cm in women; the extent of underestimation was greater in participants with larger hip circumference and older participants. On average, WHR was underestimated by less than 2% by men and women; the extent of underestimation was greater among those with larger WHR, older people and those with greater BMI. Using self-reported values, the proportion of classification to the correct tertile was over 65% for waist and hip measurements. For WHR this proportion was 50% among men and 60% among women. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported waist and hip measurements in EPIC-Oxford are sufficiently accurate for identifying relationships in epidemiological studies.
Authors: Peter T Campbell; Christina C Newton; Cari M Kitahara; Alpa V Patel; Patricia Hartge; Jill Koshiol; Katherine A McGlynn; Hans-Olov Adami; Amy Berrington de González; Laura E Beane Freeman; Leslie Bernstein; Julie E Buring; Neal D Freedman; Yu-Tang Gao; Graham G Giles; Marc J Gunter; Mazda Jenab; Linda M Liao; Roger L Milne; Kim Robien; Dale P Sandler; Catherine Schairer; Howard D Sesso; Xiao-Ou Shu; Elisabete Weiderpass; Alicja Wolk; Yong-Bing Xiang; Anne Zeleniuch-Jacquotte; Wei Zheng; Susan M Gapstur Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2017-03-17 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Heather A Ward; Petra A Wark; David C Muller; Annika Steffen; Mattias Johansson; Teresa Norat; Marc J Gunter; Kim Overvad; Christina C Dahm; Jytte Halkjær; Anne Tjønneland; Marie-Christine Boutron-Ruault; Guy Fagherazzi; Sylvie Mesrine; Paul Brennan; Heinz Freisling; Kuanrong Li; Rudolf Kaaks; Antonia Trichopoulou; Pagona Lagiou; Salavatore Panico; Sara Grioni; Rosario Tumino; Paolo Vineis; Domenico Palli; Petra H M Peeters; H Bas Bueno-de-Mesquita; Elisabete Weiderpass; Antonio Agudo; Jose Ramón Quirós; Nerea Larrañaga; Eva Ardanaz; José María Huerta; María-José Sánchez; Göran Laurell; Ingegerd Johansson; Ulla Westin; Peter Wallström; Kathryn E Bradbury; Nicholas J Wareham; Kay-Tee Khaw; Clare Pearson; Heiner Boeing; Elio Riboli Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2017-02-09 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Peter T Campbell; Christina C Newton; Neal D Freedman; Jill Koshiol; Michael C Alavanja; Laura E Beane Freeman; Julie E Buring; Andrew T Chan; Dawn Q Chong; Mridul Datta; Mia M Gaudet; J Michael Gaziano; Edward L Giovannucci; Barry I Graubard; Albert R Hollenbeck; Lindsey King; I-Min Lee; Martha S Linet; Julie R Palmer; Jessica L Petrick; Jenny N Poynter; Mark P Purdue; Kim Robien; Lynn Rosenberg; Vikrant V Sahasrabuddhe; Catherine Schairer; Howard D Sesso; Alice J Sigurdson; Victoria L Stevens; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Anne Zeleniuch-Jacquotte; Andrew G Renehan; Katherine A McGlynn Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2016-10-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: James R Cerhan; Steven C Moore; Eric J Jacobs; Cari M Kitahara; Philip S Rosenberg; Hans-Olov Adami; Jon O Ebbert; Dallas R English; Susan M Gapstur; Graham G Giles; Pamela L Horn-Ross; Yikyung Park; Alpa V Patel; Kim Robien; Elisabete Weiderpass; Walter C Willett; Alicja Wolk; Anne Zeleniuch-Jacquotte; Patricia Hartge; Leslie Bernstein; Amy Berrington de Gonzalez Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Johanna C Dekkers; Marieke F van Wier; Ingrid J M Hendriksen; Jos W R Twisk; Willem van Mechelen Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2008-10-28 Impact factor: 4.615