Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26170718›Full record

ArticleClinical epidemiology2015

Validity of self-reported body mass index among middle-aged participants in the Norwegian Women and Cancer study.

Guri Skeie, Nicolle Mode, Maria Henningsen, Kristin Benjaminsen Borch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

55 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Metabolic profile of biodiverse diets in a healthy European cohort.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Metabolically Defined Body Size Phenotypes and Risk of Endometrial Cancer in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC).Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Guri SkeieDepartment of Community Medicine, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Nicolle ModeDepartment of Community Medicine, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway ; National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Maria HenningsenFaculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Kristin Benjaminsen BorchDepartment of Community Medicine, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBody mass index (BMI) based on self-reported height and weight has been criticized as being biased because of an observed tendency for overweight and obese people to overestimate height and underestimate weight, resulting in higher misclassification for these groups. We examined the validity of BMI based on self-reported values in a sample of Norwegian women aged 44-64 years.

methodsThe study sample of 1,837 participants in the Norwegian Women and Cancer study self-reported height and weight, and then, within 1 year, either self-reported anthropometric again, or were measured by medical staff. Demographic and anthropometric were compared using t-tests and chi-square tests of independence. Misclassification of BMI categories was assessed by weighted Cohen's kappa and Bland-Altman plot.

resultsOn average, the two measurements were taken 8 months apart, and self-reported weight increased by 0.6 kg (P<0.05), and BMI by 0.2 kg/m(2) (P<0.05). The distribution of BMI categories did not differ between self-reported and measured values. There was substantial agreement between self-reported values and those measured by medical staff (weighted kappa 0.73). Under-reporting resulting in misclassification of BMI category was most common among overweight women (36%), but the highest proportion of extreme under-reporting was found in obese women (18% outside the 95% limits of agreement). The cumulative distribution curves for the measured and self-reported values closely followed each other, but measurements by medical staff were shifted slightly toward higher BMI values.

conclusionWhile there was substantial agreement between self-reported and measured BMI values, there was small but statistically significant under-reporting of weight and thus self-reported BMI. The tendency to under-report was largest among overweight women, while the largest degree of under-reporting was found in the obese group. Self-reported weight and height provide a valid ranking of BMI for middle-aged Norwegian women.

Indexed as

body mass indexNorwayrepeated measurementsself-reportvaliditywomen

Identifiers

PMID26170718
PMCPMC4493970

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.