ArticlePloS one2019
The impact of skinfolds measurement on somatotype determination in Heath-Carter method.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Skinfolds Measurement Protocols and Standards: A Narrative Review.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Review
- Morphology of male world cup and elite bouldering athletes.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe study aim was to determine if a difference exists in skinfold thickness measured by two interchangeable approaches; (1) supraspinale skinfold recommended in the Heath-Carter method and (2) iliac crest skinfold measurement. The question arises as to whether each approach has a similar or different effect on endomorphy determination, and whether there is a possibility to estimate the supraspinale skinfold based on other skinfold measurements.
methodsA group of 186 male and 161 female students participated in this study. Anthropometric examination included all somatic measurements, as recommended in the Heath-Carter protocol, and the iliac crest skinfold measurement. Estimation of the supraspinale skinfold was performed based on the multiple linear regression procedure.
resultsSkinfold thickness measured in the supraspinale and iliac crest differed (p<0.001) in both men (5.41±1.65 mm and 9.55±4.05 mm, respectively) and women (8.87±4.08 mm and 15.20±6.85 mm), respectively. Endomorphy was significantly higher (0.46 in men, 0.63 in women) when the iliac crest skinfold was used. Subscapular skinfold and iliac crest skinfolds were included in the linear regression model for supraspinale skinfold estimation (R2 = 0.724, SE = 0.9 mm and R2 = 0.947, SE = 2.3 mm for men and women, respectively).
conclusionTwo common skinfold approaches produced different measurements between the supraspinale and iliac crest skinfolds, which subsequently affected estimated endomorphy. Regression equations for supraspinale skinfold enabled correction of endomorphy in the case of improperly applied measurement (i.e. iliac crest) and thus, could allow for uniform somatotype estimation according to Carter and Heath approach.
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.