Barbara G Carranza Leon1, Michael D Jensen2, Jennifer J Hartman3, Teresa B Jensen4. 1. Endocrine Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology & Metabolism, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 2. Endocrine Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 3. Department of Family Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 4. Department of Family Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota jensen.teresa@mayo.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although waist circumference can provide important metabolic risk information, logistic issues inhibit its routine use in outpatient practice settings. We assessed whether self-measured waist circumference is sufficiently accurate to replace professionally measured waist circumference for identifying high-risk patients. METHODS: Medical outpatients and research participants self-measured their waist circumference at the same visit during which a professionally measured waist circumference was obtained. Participants were provided with standardized pictorial instructions on how to measure their waist circumference, and professionals underwent standard training. RESULTS: Self- and professionally measured waist circumference data were collected for 585 women (mean ± SD age = 40 ± 14 years, mean ± SD body mass index = 27.7 ± 6.0 kg/m(2)) and 165 men (mean ± SD age = 41 ± 14 years, mean ± SD body mass index = 29.3 ± 4.6 kg/m(2)). Although self- and professionally measured waist circumference did not differ significantly, we found a clinically important false-negative rate for the self-measurements. Eleven percent of normal-weight and 52% of overweight women had a professionally measured waist circumference putting them in a high-risk category for metabolic syndrome (ie, greater than 88 cm); however, 57% and 18% of these women, respectively, undermeasured their waist circumference as falling below that cutoff. Fifteen percent and 84% of overweight and class I obese men, respectively, had a professionally measured waist circumference putting them in the high-risk category (ie, greater than 102 cm); however, 23% and 16% of these men, respectively, undermeasured their waist circumference as falling below that cutoff. CONCLUSIONS: Despite standardized pictorial instructions for self-measured waist circumference, the false-negative rate of self-measurements approached or exceeded 20% for some groups at high risk for poor health outcomes.
PURPOSE: Although waist circumference can provide important metabolic risk information, logistic issues inhibit its routine use in outpatient practice settings. We assessed whether self-measured waist circumference is sufficiently accurate to replace professionally measured waist circumference for identifying high-risk patients. METHODS: Medical outpatients and research participants self-measured their waist circumference at the same visit during which a professionally measured waist circumference was obtained. Participants were provided with standardized pictorial instructions on how to measure their waist circumference, and professionals underwent standard training. RESULTS: Self- and professionally measured waist circumference data were collected for 585 women (mean ± SD age = 40 ± 14 years, mean ± SD body mass index = 27.7 ± 6.0 kg/m(2)) and 165 men (mean ± SD age = 41 ± 14 years, mean ± SD body mass index = 29.3 ± 4.6 kg/m(2)). Although self- and professionally measured waist circumference did not differ significantly, we found a clinically important false-negative rate for the self-measurements. Eleven percent of normal-weight and 52% of overweight women had a professionally measured waist circumference putting them in a high-risk category for metabolic syndrome (ie, greater than 88 cm); however, 57% and 18% of these women, respectively, undermeasured their waist circumference as falling below that cutoff. Fifteen percent and 84% of overweight and class I obesemen, respectively, had a professionally measured waist circumference putting them in the high-risk category (ie, greater than 102 cm); however, 23% and 16% of these men, respectively, undermeasured their waist circumference as falling below that cutoff. CONCLUSIONS: Despite standardized pictorial instructions for self-measured waist circumference, the false-negative rate of self-measurements approached or exceeded 20% for some groups at high risk for poor health outcomes.
Authors: T W Weaver; L H Kushi; P G McGovern; J D Potter; S S Rich; R A King; J Whitbeck; J Greenstein; T A Sellers Journal: Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord Date: 1996-07
Authors: Rebecca P Gelber; J Michael Gaziano; E John Orav; Joann E Manson; Julie E Buring; Tobias Kurth Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2008-08-19 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Mohamed Taher; Christina Yule; Heather Bonaparte; Sara Kwiecien; Charlotte Collins; Allison Naylor; S P Juraschek; Lisa Bailey-Davis; Alex R Chang Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-03-03 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Dalia S Mikhail; Teresa B Jensen; Todd W Wade; Jane F Myers; Jennifer M Frank; Mark Wieland; Don Hensrud; M Molly McMahon; Maria L Collazo-Clavell; Haitham Abu-Lebdeh; Kurt A Kennel; Daniel L Hurley; Karen Grothe; Michael D Jensen Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Commun Date: 2018-03-09