Literature DB >> 9797647

Self-reported waist circumference compared with the 'Waist Watcher' tape-measure to identify individuals at increased health risk through intra-abdominal fat accumulation.

T S Han1, M E Lean.   

Abstract

We evaluated the accuracy of self-reported home-assessed and self-measured waist circumference in 101 men and eighty-three women aged 28-67 years. The main outcome measures were subjects' self-reported and self-measured waist circumference, and self-classification according to the previously defined waist action level 1 (940 mm in men, 800 mm in women) and action level 2 (1020 mm in men, 880 mm in women), and waist circumference measured by the investigator using the 'Waist Watcher' tape-measure, as the reference method. The mean errors (95% CI limits of agreement) for subjects' self-reported waist circumference (self-reported minus reference; mm) were -67 (95% CI -210, 77) in men and -43 (95% CI -211, 123) in women, and for self-measured waist circumference (mm) using the 'Waist Watcher' (self-measured minus reference) were -5 (95% CI -62, 52) in men and -4 (95% CI -50, 42) in women. The proportions of subjects classified into waist action level 1 or action level 2 by the investigator were used as the reference method. Self-reported waist circumference of men and women respectively would be classified correctly in different categories based on action level 1 with sensitivities of 58.3 and 78.7%, and specificities of 92.5 and 91.7%, and action level 2 with sensitivities of 35.3 and 44.9%, and specificities of 98.5 and 90.7%. Using the 'Waist Watcher' with different colour bands based on the action levels, male and female subjects respectively classified themselves into correct categories according to action level 1 with sensitivities of 100 and 95.7%, and specificities of 95.1 and 97.2%, and according to action level 2 with sensitivities of 97.1 and 100%, and specificities of 100% for both sexes. Only 2% of the sample misclassified themselves into the wrong categories according to waist circumference action levels. In conclusion, people tend to underestimate their waist circumference, but the 'Waist Watcher' tape-measure offers advantages over self-reported home-assessed measurement, and may be used as a screening tool for self-classifying the risk of ill health through intra-abdominal fat accumulation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9797647     DOI: 10.1017/s0007114598001809

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Nutr        ISSN: 0007-1145            Impact factor:   3.718


  14 in total

1.  Self-Measured vs Professionally Measured Waist Circumference.

Authors:  Barbara G Carranza Leon; Michael D Jensen; Jennifer J Hartman; Teresa B Jensen
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 5.166

2.  Waist circumference and testosterone levels in community dwelling men. The Tromsø study.

Authors:  Johan Svartberg; Denise von Mühlen; Johan Sundsfjord; Rolf Jorde
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 8.082

3.  Changing distributions of body size and adiposity with age.

Authors:  A Vlassopoulos; E Combet; M E J Lean
Journal:  Int J Obes (Lond)       Date:  2013-11-19       Impact factor: 5.095

4.  Lifetime body size and reproductive factors: comparisons of data recorded prospectively with self reports in middle age.

Authors:  Benjamin J Cairns; Bette Liu; Suzanne Clennell; Rachel Cooper; Gillian K Reeves; Valerie Beral; Diana Kuh
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2011-01-17       Impact factor: 4.615

5.  Validation of metabolic syndrome using medical records in the SUN cohort.

Authors:  Maria Teresa Barrio-Lopez; Maira Bes-Rastrollo; Juan Jose Beunza; Alejandro Fernandez-Montero; Martin Garcia-Lopez; Miguel Angel Martinez-Gonzalez
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2011-11-15       Impact factor: 3.295

6.  Accuracy of self-reported body weight, height and waist circumference in a Dutch overweight working population.

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

7.  Preferential loss of visceral fat following aerobic exercise, measured by magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  E L Thomas; A E Brynes; J McCarthy; A P Goldstone; J V Hajnal; N Saeed; G Frost; J D Bell
Journal:  Lipids       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 1.880

8.  Primary prevention of diabetes mellitus type 2 and cardiovascular diseases using a cognitive behavior program aimed at lifestyle changes in people at risk: Design of a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Jeroen Lakerveld; Sandra D M Bot; Marijke J Chinapaw; Maurits W van Tulder; Patricia van Oppen; Jacqueline M Dekker; Giel Nijpels
Journal:  BMC Endocr Disord       Date:  2008-06-24       Impact factor: 2.763

9.  Validity over time of self-reported anthropometric variables during follow-up of a large cohort of UK women.

Authors:  F Lucy Wright; Jane Green; Gillian Reeves; Valerie Beral; Benjamin J Cairns
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2015-10-08       Impact factor: 4.615

10.  Validity of self-measured waist and hip circumferences: results from a community study in Malaysia.

Authors:  Daniel D Reidpath; Julius Chee-Ho Cheah; Fui-Ching Lam; Shahjahan Yasin; Ireneous Soyiri; Pascale Allotey
Journal:  Nutr J       Date:  2013-10-05       Impact factor: 3.271

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.