Cited by 109Body Composition Measurement TechniquesStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyNutritional Studies and Diet

Accuracy of self-reported waist and hip measurements in 4492 EPIC-Oxford participants

Open access
Spencer, Elizabeth A, Roddam, Andrew W, Key, Timothy J·2004·Public Health Nutrition

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of self-reported waist and hip circumferences and the waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) by comparison with measured waist and hip circumferences and WHR in a sample of middle-aged men and women. DESIGN: Analysis of measured and self-reported waist and hip data from participants in the Oxford cohort of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-Oxford). PARTICIPANTS: Four thousand four hundred and ninety-two British men and women aged 35-76 years. RESULTS: Spearman's rank correlation coefficients between measured and self-reported waist, hip and WHR were 0.80, 0.74 and 0.44, respectively, for men and 0.83, 0.86 and 0.62 for women. Waist was underestimated, on average, by 3.1 (standard deviation (SD) 5.6) cm in men and 1.9 (SD 5.4) cm in women. The extent of underestimation was greater in participants with larger waists, older participants and women with greater body mass index (BMI). Hip was underestimated by a mean of 1.8 (SD 4.9) cm in men and 1.2 (SD 4.5) cm in women; the extent of underestimation was greater in participants with larger hip circumference and older participants. On average, WHR was underestimated by less than 2% by men and women; the extent of underestimation was greater among those with larger WHR, older people and those with greater BMI. Using self-reported values, the proportion of classification to the correct tertile was over 65% for waist and hip measurements. For WHR this proportion was 50% among men and 60% among women. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported waist and hip measurements in EPIC-Oxford are sufficiently accurate for identifying relationships in epidemiological studies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1079/phn2004600

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Spencer, E. A., Roddam, A. W., & Key, T. J.
Affiliations
Cancer Research UK (GB)
Corresponding author
Spencer, Elizabeth A
Venue
Public Health Nutrition
Published
2004-09
Volume
7
Issue
6
Pages
723-727
ISSN
  • 1368-9800 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2727
OpenAlex
W2125774052
Cited by
109
References
12
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 6
FWCI
1.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Public Health Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Cancer Research UK
  • Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Body Composition Measurement Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
Keywords
waist-to-hip ratio, measurement accuracy, underestimation, body mass index, middle-aged adults, anthropometry
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, England, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Obesity, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Disclosure, Reproducibility of Results, Waist-Hip Ratio

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