ArticleBMC obesity2019
A secondary analysis examining the concordance of self-perception of weight and actual measurement of body fat percentage: The CRONICAS Cohort Study.
Article in BMC obesity, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Levels and Associations of Weight Misperception with Healthy Lifestyle among Adults in Saudi Arabia.Obesity facts · 2021Article
- Neural correlates of illness awareness in obesity: an exploratory pilot fMRI study.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIndividuals' self-perceptions of weight often differ from objective measurements of body fat. This study aimed to 1) measure agreement between self-perceptions of weight and objective measurement of body fat by bioelectric impedance analysis (BIA) among Peruvian adults; and 2) quantify the association between body fat and a) baseline self-perceptions of weight and b) whether a participant underestimated their weight status.
methodsLongitudinal data from the CRONICAS Cohort Study of 3181 Peruvian adults aged 35-years and older were used. BIA measurements of body fat were categorized across four nominal descriptions: low weight, normal, overweight, and obese. Kappa statistics were estimated to compare BIA measurements with baseline self-perceptions of weight. To quantify the association between body fat over time with both baseline self-perceptions of weight and underestimation of weight status, random effects models, controlling for socioeconomic and demographic covariates, were employed.
resultsOf the 3181 participants, 1111 (34.9%) were overweight and 649 (20.4%) were obese at baseline. Agreement between self-perceived and BIA weight status was found among 43.1% of participants, while 49.9% underestimated and 6.9% overestimated their weight status. Weighted kappa statistics ranged from 0.20 to 0.31 across settings, suggesting poor agreement. Compared to perceiving oneself as normal, perceiving oneself as underweight, overweight, or obese was associated with - 4.1 (
conclusionsHalf of study participants were overweight or obese. There was poor agreement between self-perceptions of weight with BIA measurements of body fat, indicating that individuals often believe they weigh less than they actually do. Underestimating one's weight status was associated with having more body fat percentage points, but was only statistically significant after adjusting for demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. Further research should be conducted to investigate how self-perceptions of weight can support clinical and public health interventions to curb the obesity epidemic.
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.