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%)...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |