Assessing subcutaneous adipose tissue by simple and portable field instruments: Skinfolds versus A-mode ultrasound measurements

PURPOSE: This study compared subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) measurements using a skinfold caliper and Renco Lean-Meater Series 12 A-mode portable ultrasound scanner (A-US). It aimed to assess their inter- and intra-rater reliability and measure the agreement between both methods. METHODS: Eighty-four volunteers of different fitness levels were divided into three groups by Ʃ6 skinfolds: G1 ≤ 55 mm (n = 33 males); G2 > 55 mm (n = 32 males); G3 = 98.0 ± 52.3 mm (n = 19 females). Triceps, subscapular, biceps, iliac crest, supraspinal, abdominal, front thigh and medial calf were assessed by ultrasound and skinfolds. Two technicians for both tools performed triplicate measures. Intraclass correlation (ICC), technical error of measurement (TEM) and coefficients of variation (CVs) were applied for test-retest and inter-rater reliability. Non-Parametric statistics were used in order to establish possible statistical differences and correlation between skinfolds thickness and uncompressed subcutaneous adipose tissue thickness from ultrasound. The amount of agreement between both methods was assessed with Lin’s coefficient and a scatterplot of all site locations. A Bland-Altman plot was constructed to establish limits of agreement between groups and regression analysis was employed to assess the ability of skinfolds to explain the variance of ultrasound. RESULTS: Test-retest ICC for skinfolds and ultrasound were higher than 0.989 and 0.793, respectively. Inter-rater ICC for skinfolds was 0.999 with a 95% CI of 0.995 to 0.999 and for ultrasound was 0.755 with a much larger 95% CI of 0.622 to 0.841. TEMs (> 8.50%) and CVs (> 6.72%) compromised ultrasound reliability. Statistical differences were found in most of the analysed anatomical sites (p < 0.001) except in biceps G2 (Z = -1.150, p = 0.25) and G3 (Z = -1.309, p = 0.19). Good correlations (r > 0.7, p ≤ 0.05) were reported at almost all anatomical sites and groups except for biceps (G1: Rho = 0.26, p = 0.140) and abdominal (G2: Rho = -0.16, p = 0.38; G3: Rho = 0.43, p = 0.068). Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient registered low values of agreement between skinfolds and A-mode ultrasound (ranged from—0.009–0.646). The scatterplot and the estimated regression line drawn through the midst of all anatomical sites of the whole sample had a slope of 0.51 and R(2) adjusted = 0.62 was obtained. The combined analysis between the Bland-Altman plot and the linear regression showed that specifically in the G2 and G3 groups, as the SAT increases the differences between skinfolds and ultrasounds measurements also increases. CONCLUSIONS: The Renco Lean-Meater ultrasound is not interchangeable with skinfold measures. Its utility is questionable, particularly for assessing SAT in active adult populations. Its poor test-retest and inter-rater reliability as well as the lack of agreement when compared to the skinfolds would exclude the free use of the A-mode ultrasound scanner in its hypothetical replacing of the classical calipers.