OBJECTIVE: It is not clear whether measuring waist circumference in clinical practice is problematic because the measurement error is unclear, as well as what constitutes a clinically relevant change. The present study aimed to summarize what is known from state-of-the-art research. DESIGN: To identify the magnitude of the measurement error of waist circumference measurements from the literature, a search was conducted in PubMed from 1975 to February 2011. RESULTS: The measurement error may vary between 0·7 cm and 15 cm. Taking a realistic range of measurable waist circumference into account (60-135 cm), we argue that a short-term clinically relevant change in waist circumference of 5 % may lie between 3·0 and 6·8 cm and a maintained clinically relevant change of 3 % between 1·8 and 4·1 cm. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results, we conclude it may be difficult to distinguish clinically relevant change from measurement error in individual subjects, due to the large measurement error and unclear definition of clinically relevant change. More research is needed to address these gaps in knowledge. To minimize measurement error, we recommend using a uniform measurement protocol, training and repeated measurements.
OBJECTIVE: It is not clear whether measuring waist circumference in clinical practice is problematic because the measurement error is unclear, as well as what constitutes a clinically relevant change. The present study aimed to summarize what is known from state-of-the-art research. DESIGN: To identify the magnitude of the measurement error of waist circumference measurements from the literature, a search was conducted in PubMed from 1975 to February 2011. RESULTS: The measurement error may vary between 0·7 cm and 15 cm. Taking a realistic range of measurable waist circumference into account (60-135 cm), we argue that a short-term clinically relevant change in waist circumference of 5 % may lie between 3·0 and 6·8 cm and a maintained clinically relevant change of 3 % between 1·8 and 4·1 cm. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results, we conclude it may be difficult to distinguish clinically relevant change from measurement error in individual subjects, due to the large measurement error and unclear definition of clinically relevant change. More research is needed to address these gaps in knowledge. To minimize measurement error, we recommend using a uniform measurement protocol, training and repeated measurements.
Authors: Nina E Berentzen; Alet H Wijga; Lenie van Rossem; Gerard H Koppelman; Bo van Nieuwenhuizen; Ulrike Gehring; Annemieke M W Spijkerman; Henriëtte A Smit Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2016-05-30 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Emer M Guinan; Suzanne L Doyle; Linda O'Neill; Margaret R Dunne; Emma K Foley; Jacintha O'Sullivan; John V Reynolds; Juliette Hussey Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-11-03 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Melker S Johansson; Andreas Holtermann; Jacob L Marott; Eva Prescott; Peter Schnohr; Mette Korshøj; Karen Søgaard Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-04-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Marco Alessandro Minetto; Angelo Pietrobelli; Chiara Busso; Jonathan P Bennett; Andrea Ferraris; John A Shepherd; Steven B Heymsfield Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-05-30
Authors: Lorena Rumbo-Rodríguez; Miriam Sánchez-SanSegundo; Rosario Ferrer-Cascales; Nahuel García-D'Urso; Jose A Hurtado-Sánchez; Ana Zaragoza-Martí Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 3.390