Cargando…

The performance of anthropometric tools to determine obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this systematic review was to assess the performance of anthropometric tools to determine obesity in the general population (CRD42018086888). Our review included 32 studies. To detect obesity with body mass index (BMI), the meta-analyses rendered a sensitivity of 51.4% (95% CI 38.5–64.2%)...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sommer, Isolde, Teufer, Birgit, Szelag, Monika, Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara, Titscher, Viktoria, Klerings, Irma, Gartlehner, Gerald
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7391719/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32728050
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-69498-7
_version_ 1783564707233267712
author Sommer, Isolde
Teufer, Birgit
Szelag, Monika
Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara
Titscher, Viktoria
Klerings, Irma
Gartlehner, Gerald
author_facet Sommer, Isolde
Teufer, Birgit
Szelag, Monika
Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara
Titscher, Viktoria
Klerings, Irma
Gartlehner, Gerald
author_sort Sommer, Isolde
collection PubMed
description The aim of this systematic review was to assess the performance of anthropometric tools to determine obesity in the general population (CRD42018086888). Our review included 32 studies. To detect obesity with body mass index (BMI), the meta-analyses rendered a sensitivity of 51.4% (95% CI 38.5–64.2%) and a specificity of 95.4% (95% CI 90.7–97.8%) in women, and 49.6% (95% CI 34.8–64.5%) and 97.3% (95% CI 92.1–99.1%), respectively, in men. For waist circumference (WC), the summary estimates for the sensitivity were 62.4% (95% CI 49.2–73.9%) and 88.1% for the specificity (95% CI 77.0–94.2%) in men, and 57.0% (95% CI 32.2–79.0%) and 94.8% (95% CI 85.8–98.2%), respectively, in women. The data were insufficient to pool the results for waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) but were similar to BMI and WC. In conclusion, BMI and WC have serious limitations for use as obesity screening tools in clinical practice despite their widespread use. No evidence supports that WHR and WHtR are more suitable than BMI or WC to assess body fat. However, due to the lack of more accurate and feasible alternatives, BMI and WC might still have a role as initial tools for assessing individuals for excess adiposity until new evidence emerges.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7391719
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73917192020-07-31 The performance of anthropometric tools to determine obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis Sommer, Isolde Teufer, Birgit Szelag, Monika Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara Titscher, Viktoria Klerings, Irma Gartlehner, Gerald Sci Rep Article The aim of this systematic review was to assess the performance of anthropometric tools to determine obesity in the general population (CRD42018086888). Our review included 32 studies. To detect obesity with body mass index (BMI), the meta-analyses rendered a sensitivity of 51.4% (95% CI 38.5–64.2%) and a specificity of 95.4% (95% CI 90.7–97.8%) in women, and 49.6% (95% CI 34.8–64.5%) and 97.3% (95% CI 92.1–99.1%), respectively, in men. For waist circumference (WC), the summary estimates for the sensitivity were 62.4% (95% CI 49.2–73.9%) and 88.1% for the specificity (95% CI 77.0–94.2%) in men, and 57.0% (95% CI 32.2–79.0%) and 94.8% (95% CI 85.8–98.2%), respectively, in women. The data were insufficient to pool the results for waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) but were similar to BMI and WC. In conclusion, BMI and WC have serious limitations for use as obesity screening tools in clinical practice despite their widespread use. No evidence supports that WHR and WHtR are more suitable than BMI or WC to assess body fat. However, due to the lack of more accurate and feasible alternatives, BMI and WC might still have a role as initial tools for assessing individuals for excess adiposity until new evidence emerges. Nature Publishing Group UK 2020-07-29 /pmc/articles/PMC7391719/ /pubmed/32728050 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-69498-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Article
Sommer, Isolde
Teufer, Birgit
Szelag, Monika
Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara
Titscher, Viktoria
Klerings, Irma
Gartlehner, Gerald
The performance of anthropometric tools to determine obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title The performance of anthropometric tools to determine obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full The performance of anthropometric tools to determine obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr The performance of anthropometric tools to determine obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed The performance of anthropometric tools to determine obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short The performance of anthropometric tools to determine obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort performance of anthropometric tools to determine obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7391719/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32728050
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-69498-7
work_keys_str_mv AT sommerisolde theperformanceofanthropometrictoolstodetermineobesityasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT teuferbirgit theperformanceofanthropometrictoolstodetermineobesityasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT szelagmonika theperformanceofanthropometrictoolstodetermineobesityasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT nussbaumerstreitbarbara theperformanceofanthropometrictoolstodetermineobesityasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT titscherviktoria theperformanceofanthropometrictoolstodetermineobesityasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT kleringsirma theperformanceofanthropometrictoolstodetermineobesityasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT gartlehnergerald theperformanceofanthropometrictoolstodetermineobesityasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT sommerisolde performanceofanthropometrictoolstodetermineobesityasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT teuferbirgit performanceofanthropometrictoolstodetermineobesityasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT szelagmonika performanceofanthropometrictoolstodetermineobesityasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT nussbaumerstreitbarbara performanceofanthropometrictoolstodetermineobesityasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT titscherviktoria performanceofanthropometrictoolstodetermineobesityasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT kleringsirma performanceofanthropometrictoolstodetermineobesityasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT gartlehnergerald performanceofanthropometrictoolstodetermineobesityasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis