ArticleAnnals of family medicine2016
Self-Measured vs Professionally Measured Waist Circumference.
Article in Annals of family medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Expert Consensus on Obesity Management Protocols - A Joint Position Statement by Obesity and Metabolic Surgery Society of India (OSSI) and Endocrine Society of India (ESI).Obesity surgery · 2026Review
- Development of a metabolic syndrome prediction model using smartphone-derived digital anthropometry.The British journal of nutrition · 2026Article
- Beyond Body Mass Index: Accurate Metabolic Disease-Risk Phenotyping With 3D Smartphone Application.Obesity science & practice · 2024Article
- Breaking Academic Silos: Pedagogical Recommendations for Equitable Obesity Prevention Training and Research During an Age of Nutrition Polarization.AJPM focus · 2024Article
- Evaluation of automated anthropometrics produced by smartphone-based machine learning: a comparison with traditional anthropometric assessments.The British journal of nutrition · 2023Article
- Exploring the Feasibility of an Online Diabetes Wellness Programme among Periodontitis Patients with Type II Diabetes Mellitus during the COVID-19 Pandemic.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Article
- Telehealth versus self-directed lifestyle intervention to promote healthy blood pressure: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Article
- Methodology of a multispecialty outpatient Obesity Treatment Research Program.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2018Article
- Systems and WBANs for Controlling Obesity.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2018Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAlthough waist circumference can provide important metabolic risk information, logistic issues inhibit its routine use in outpatient practice settings. We assessed whether self-measured waist circumference is sufficiently accurate to replace professionally measured waist circumference for identifying high-risk patients.
methodsMedical outpatients and research participants self-measured their waist circumference at the same visit during which a professionally measured waist circumference was obtained. Participants were provided with standardized pictorial instructions on how to measure their waist circumference, and professionals underwent standard training.
resultsSelf- and professionally measured waist circumference data were collected for 585 women (mean ± SD age = 40 ± 14 years, mean ± SD body mass index = 27.7 ± 6.0 kg/m(2)) and 165 men (mean ± SD age = 41 ± 14 years, mean ± SD body mass index = 29.3 ± 4.6 kg/m(2)). Although self- and professionally measured waist circumference did not differ significantly, we found a clinically important false-negative rate for the self-measurements. Eleven percent of normal-weight and 52% of overweight women had a professionally measured waist circumference putting them in a high-risk category for metabolic syndrome (ie, greater than 88 cm); however, 57% and 18% of these women, respectively, undermeasured their waist circumference as falling below that cutoff. Fifteen percent and 84% of overweight and class I obese men, respectively, had a professionally measured waist circumference putting them in the high-risk category (ie, greater than 102 cm); however, 23% and 16% of these men, respectively, undermeasured their waist circumference as falling below that cutoff.
conclusionsDespite standardized pictorial instructions for self-measured waist circumference, the false-negative rate of self-measurements approached or exceeded 20% for some groups at high risk for poor health outcomes.
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.