Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31019723›Full record

ArticleDigital health

Personalised measures of obesity using waist to height ratios from an Australian health screening program.

Herbert F Jelinek, Andrew Stranieri, Andrew Yatsko, Sitalakshmi Venkatraman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Herbert F JelinekCharles Sturt University, Australia.
Andrew StranieriFederation University, Australia.
Andrew YatskoFederation University, Australia.
Sitalakshmi VenkatramanMelbourne Polytechnic, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2772-133X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of the current study is to generate waist circumference to height ratio cut-off values for obesity categories from a model of the relationship between body mass index and waist circumference to height ratio. We compare the waist circumference to height ratio discovered in this way with cut-off values currently prevalent in practice that were originally derived using pragmatic criteria.

methodPersonalized data including age, gender, height, weight, waist circumference and presence of diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease for 847 participants over eight years were assembled from participants attending a rural Australian health review clinic (DiabHealth). Obesity was classified based on the conventional body mass index measure (weight/height

resultsThis article recommends waist circumference to height ratio cut-off values based on an Australian rural sample and verified using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey database that facilitates the classification of obesity in clinical practice. Gender independent cut-off values are provided for waist circumference to height ratio that identify healthy (waist circumference to height ratio ≥0.45), overweight (0.53) and the three obese (0.60, 0.68, 0.75) categories verified on the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey dataset. A strong linearity between the waist circumference to height ratio and the body mass index measure is demonstrated.

conclusionThe recommended waist circumference to height ratio cut-off values provided a useful index for assessing stages of obesity and risk of chronic disease for improved healthcare in clinical practice.

Indexed as

body mass indexdata miningNational Health and Nutrition Examination SurveyObesitypersonalised healthcarewaist circumference to height ratio

Identifiers

PMID31019723
PMCPMC6463229

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.