CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 132Body Composition Measurement TechniquesBody Contouring and SurgeryReliability and Agreement in Measurement

Accuracy of Subcutaneous Fat Measurement: Comparison of Skinfold Calipers, Ultrasound, and Computed Tomography

Orphanidou, Charitini, McCargar, Linda, Birmingham, C.Laird, Mathieson, John, Goldner, Elliot·1994·Journal of the American Dietetic Association
DOI 10.1016/0002-8223(94)92363-9
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective The purpose of this study was to compare skinfold caliper and ultrasound measurement of subcutaneous body fat at three abdominal sites with computed tomography, which is considered to be the gold standard.Design This was a cross-sectional study in which computed-tomography, ultrasound, and skinfold caliper measurements were made at three distinct abdominal sites. All body composition and anthropometric measurements were performed on each subject on one occasion.Subjects Twenty-two subjects were recruited (13 men and 9 women). Mean ages (+/- standard deviation) were 43 +/- 4 years for the women and 51 +/- 18 years for the men. All subjects had been previously scheduled for an abdominal or pelvic computed-tomography scan at the Department of Radiology, St Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, and participated in the study on a volunteer basis.Main outcome measures A better agreement was found between the skinfold calipers and computed-tomography methods than between the ultrasound and computed-tomography method for the measurement of subcutaneous body fat. This was observed when the data were analyzed for both correlational agreement and for graphical interpretation.Statistical analyses performed The relationships among skinfold, ultrasound, and computed-tomography measurements were analyzed by determining Pearson correlation coefficients. A graphical method described by Bland and Altman was also used to assess agreement among the three methods.Results Significant correlation coefficients were observed between skinfold calipers and computed tomography at all three abdominal sites (site 1, r = .60, P = .003; site 2, r = .70, P = .0001; site 3, r = .73, P = .0001). Ultrasound and computed-tomography methods only showed a significant correlation at site 3 (r = .54; P = .009). The graphical method revealed that the variation in the ultrasound measurements was much greater than that of the skinfold measurements when compared to computed-tomography values.Applications/conclusions The results of this study indicated that relative agreement in the measurement of subcutaneous body fat between skinfold and computed-tomography measurements was superior to that exhibited between ultrasound and computed-tomography measurements. This finding enhances the potential use of skinfold calipers in the clinical setting, particularly in view of the fact that measurement of subcutaneous body fat at different body sites is becoming increasingly important for the characterization of risk of certain disease states.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0002-8223(94)92363-9

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 24 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Orphanidou, C., McCargar, L., Birmingham, C. L., Mathieson, J., & Goldner, E.
Affiliations
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • St. Paul's Hospital (CA)
Corresponding author
McCargar, Linda
ORCID
Birmingham, C.Laird
Venue
Journal of the American Dietetic Association
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1994-08
Volume
94
Issue
8
Pages
855-858
ISSN
0002-8223 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/0002-8223(94)92363-9
OpenAlex
W2049343210
Cited by
132
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
FWCI
0.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of the American Dietetic Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Body Composition Measurement Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Body Contouring and Surgery
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
Keywords
skinfold caliper, ultrasound, computed tomography, abdominal fat, measurement agreement, body composition, anthropometry, method comparison, Bland-Altman analysis
MeSH terms
Abdomen, Adipose Tissue, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anthropometry, Body Composition, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pilot Projects, Skin, Skinfold Thickness, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Ultrasonography

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review