ArticleBMC medical research methodology2016
Reliability and criterion validity of self-measured waist, hip, and neck circumferences.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
33 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.
- The role of short-term metformin in regulating zinc and adipose tissue-derived biomarkers in children with obesity and insulin resistance.BMC endocrine disorders · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Toddler diet quality: a factor associated with childhood growth?International journal of obesity (2005) · 2026Article
- Adding home-use BIA scales, online food diaries, and tape-measures to large-scale questionnaire studies: Insights from the population-based PROFILES registry research.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Multimodal (Bio)Markers and Risk of Obesity - A Comprehensive Scoping Review.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of school-based intervention in obese children.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2026Article
- Moderate Vigorous Physical Activity for Mental Health in Sedentary Middle-Aged Adults.International journal of exercise science · 2026Article
- Association of Neck Circumference With Cardiometabolic Risk Factors and Diseases in the German National Cohort.Journal of the Endocrine Society · 2025Article
- Effect of a Mobile App-Based Exercise Program on Diastasis Recti Abdominis, Muscle Strength, Anthropometric Measures, and Satisfaction Among Post-Cesarean Primiparous Mothers: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Maximal Respiratory Muscle Strength in Singaporean Adults: Normative Reference Values and Predictive Models from a Cross-Sectional Study.Muscles (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Fertility treatment and cardio-metabolic risk factors in middle childhood.Reproductive biomedicine online · 2025Article
- Central and peripheral adiposity and premenopausal breast cancer risk: a pooled analysis of 440,179 women.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2025Article
- Article
- Waist-hip ratio is superior to BMI in predicting liver-related outcomes and synergizes with harmful alcohol use.Communications medicine · 2023Article
- Comparison of various strategies to define the optimal target population for liver fibrosis screening: A population-based cohort study.United European gastroenterology journal · 2022Article
- Obesity history, physical exam, laboratory, body composition, and energy expenditure: An Obesity Medicine Association (OMA) Clinical Practice Statement (CPS) 2022.Obesity pillars · 2022Article
- Association of sleep apnoea risk and aortic enlargement in Marfan syndrome.BMJ open respiratory research · 2021Article
- Anthropometric assessment in ambulatory nutrition amid the COVID-19 pandemic: Possibilities for the remote and in-person care.Clinical nutrition ESPEN · 2021Article
- Abdominal and gluteofemoral size and risk of liver cancer: The liver cancer pooling project.International journal of cancer · 2020Article
- Use and reporting of Bland-Altman analyses in studies of self-reported versus measured weight and height.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWaist, hip, and neck circumference measurements are cost-effective, non-invasive, useful markers for body fat distribution and disease risk. For epidemiology and intervention studies, including body circumference measurements in self-report surveys could be informative. However, few studies have assessed the test-retest reliability and criterion validity of a self-report tool feasible for use in large scale studies.
methodsAt home, mothers of young children viewed a brief, online instructional video on how to measure their waist, hip, and neck circumferences. Afterwards, they created a homemade paper measuring tape from a downloaded file with scissors and tape, took all measurements in duplicate, and entered them into an online survey. A few weeks later, participants visited an anthropometrics lab where they measured themselves again, and trained technicians (n = 9) measured participants in duplicate using standard equipment and procedures. To assess differences between self- and technician-measured circumferences, duplicate measurements for participant home self-measurements, participant lab self-measurements, and technician measurements each were averaged and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests conducted. Agreement between all possible pairs of measurements were examined using Intraclass Correlations (ICCs) and Bland-Altman plots.
resultsParticipants (n = 41; aged 38.05 ± 3.54SD years; 71 % white) were all mothers that had at least one child under the age of 12 yrs. Technical error of measurements for self- and technician- duplicate measurements varied little (0.08 to 0.76 inches) and had very high reliability (≥0.90). Intraclass Correlations (ICC) comparing self vs technician were high (0.97, 0.96, and 0.84 for waist, hip, and neck). Comparison of self-measurements at home vs lab revealed high test-retest reliability (ICC ≥ 0.87). Differences between participant self- and technician measurements were small (i.e., mean difference ranged from -0.13 to 0.06 inches) with nearly all (≥93 %) differences within Bland-Altman limits of agreement and <10 % exceeding the a priori clinically meaningful difference criterion.
conclusionsThis study has demonstrated a simple, inexpensive method for teaching novice mothers of young children to take their own body circumferences resulting in accurate, reliable data. Thus, collecting self-measured and self-reported circumference data in future studies may be a feasible approach in research protocols that has potential to expand our knowledge of body composition beyond that provided by self-reported body mass indexes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.