Literature DB >> 28052064

Validity and intraobserver reliability of three-dimensional scanning compared with conventional anthropometry for children and adolescents from a population-based cohort study.

Fabian Glock1,2, Mandy Vogel1, Stephanie Naumann1, Andreas Kuehnapfel1,3, Markus Scholz1,3, Andreas Hiemisch1,2, Toralf Kirsten1, Kristin Rieger1,2, Antje Koerner1,2, Markus Loeffler1,3, Wieland Kiess1,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Conventional anthropometric measurements are time consuming and require well trained medical staff. To use three-dimensional whole body laser scanning in daily clinical work, validity, and reliability have to be confirmed.
METHODS: We compared a whole body laser scanner with conventional anthropometry in a group of 473 children and adolescents from the Leipzig Research Centre for Civilization Diseases (LIFE-Child). Concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) were calculated separately for sex, weight, and age to assess validity. Overall CCC (OCCC) was used to analyze intraobserver reliability.
RESULTS: Body height and the circumferences of waist, hip, upper arm, and calf had an "excellent" (CCC ≥ 0.9); neck and thigh circumference, a "good" (CCC ≥ 0.7); and head circumference, a "low" (CCC < 0.5) degree of concordance over the complete study population. We observed dependencies of validity on sex, weight, and age. Intraobserver reliability of both techniques is "excellent" (OCCC ≥ 0.9).
CONCLUSION: Scanning is faster, requires less intensive staff training and provides more information. It can be used in an epidemiologic setting with children and adolescents but some measurements should be considered with caution due to reduced agreement with conventional anthropometry.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28052064     DOI: 10.1038/pr.2016.274

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pediatr Res        ISSN: 0031-3998            Impact factor:   3.756


  8 in total

1.  Response to Sabour.

Authors:  Fabian Glock; Markus Scholz; Andreas Kuehnapfel; Wieland Kiess
Journal:  Pediatr Res       Date:  2017-06-21       Impact factor: 3.756

2.  Validity and reliability of three-dimensional scanning compared to conventional anthropometry for children and adolescents: methodological mistake.

Authors:  Siamak Sabour
Journal:  Pediatr Res       Date:  2017-05-31       Impact factor: 3.756

Review 3.  How to best assess abdominal obesity.

Authors:  Hongjuan Fang; Elizabeth Berg; Xiaoguang Cheng; Wei Shen
Journal:  Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 4.294

4.  ABDOMINAL SUBCUTANEOUS FAT THICKNESS MEASURED BY ULTRASOUND AS A PREDICTOR OF TOTAL FAT MASS IN YOUNG- AND MIDDLE-AGED ADULTS.

Authors:  Ş Ş Torgutalp; F Korkusuz
Journal:  Acta Endocrinol (Buchar)       Date:  2022 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 1.104

5.  Longitudinal anthropometry of children and adolescents using 3D-body scanning.

Authors:  Henry Loeffler-Wirth; Mandy Vogel; Toralf Kirsten; Fabian Glock; Tanja Poulain; Antje Körner; Markus Loeffler; Wieland Kiess; Hans Binder
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-09-13       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  The smart body concept as a demonstration of the overarching utility and benefits of 3D avatars in retail, health and wellbeing: an accuracy study of body measures from 3D reconstruction.

Authors:  Veronica Cimolin; Ioannis Th Paraskevopoulos; Maurizio Sala; Marco Tarabini; Manuela Galli
Journal:  Multimed Tools Appl       Date:  2022-09-13       Impact factor: 2.577

Review 7.  Comparison of Body Scanner and Manual Anthropometric Measurements of Body Shape: A Systematic Review.

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

8.  The aging human body shape.

Authors:  Alexander Frenzel; Hans Binder; Nadja Walter; Kerstin Wirkner; Markus Loeffler; Henry Loeffler-Wirth
Journal:  NPJ Aging Mech Dis       Date:  2020-03-24
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.