Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33444369›Full record

Observational studyPloS one2021

Comparison of obesity and metabolic syndrome prevalence using fat mass index, body mass index and percentage body fat.

Joseph C Wong, Sheila O'Neill, Belinda R Beck, Mark R Forwood, Soo Keat Khoo

Abstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Overweight and obesity in Jordanian adults before and after COVID-19: a multi-index comparison.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Association of Air Pollution With Adiposity Rates in Active Runners and Inactive People.American journal of human biology : the official journal of the Human Biology Council · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

Joseph C WongDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8118-5486
Sheila O'NeillBetty Byrne Henderson Women's Health Research Centre, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Belinda R BeckSchool of Allied Health Sciences & Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University Gold Coast campus, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Mark R ForwoodSchool of Medical Science & Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University Gold Coast campus, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Soo Keat KhooBetty Byrne Henderson Women's Health Research Centre, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurate obesity classification is important so that appropriate intervention can be instituted to modify metabolic risk factors. Commonly utilized body mass index (BMI) and percentage body fat (PBF) are influenced by lean mass whereas fat mass index (FMI) measures only body fat. This study compares the prevalence of obesity and metabolic risk factors with FMI, BMI and PBF using DXA (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry).

methods489 women randomly recruited from the electoral roll were stratified into 4 age groups; 40-49, 50-59, 60-69 and 70-79 years from 2000 to 2001. Clinical data and DXA body composition were obtained. Statistical analyses were performed using Medcalc v15 (Ostend, Belgium) with significance level at p = 0.05 (two-tailed).

resultsThere was higher prevalence of obesity using PBF compared to BMI and FMI (p<0.001). This difference was greater from age 50-59 (p<0.05) which may be explained by age-related lean mass loss. PBF over-classified obesity in over 35% of normal and 95% of overweight categories compared to FMI and BMI. BMI has a sensitivity of 78.9% and specificity of 98.3% for obesity using FMI as the standard. BMI under-classified obesity in the overweight category by 14.9% compared to FMI. There was no difference in diabetes, dyslipidemia, hypertension and metabolic syndrome prevalence within the BMI-obesity and FMI-obesity categories (p>0.05).

conclusionPBF classified more obesity than BMI and FMI because of its low pre-determined threshold. The greater difference with PBF compared to BMI and FMI from the 50-59 decade onwards can be attributed to age-related lean mass loss. BMI had the lowest sensitivity for obesity diagnosis. BMI under-classified obesity in the overweight category compared to FMI due to its inability to differentiate lean mass. However, there was no significant difference in the prevalence of metabolic risk factors between BMI and FMI-obesity categories indicating that fat location may influence metabolic dysregulation.

Indexed as

Adipose TissueAdultAgedBody CompositionBody Mass IndexFemaleHumansMaleMetabolic SyndromeMiddle AgedObesityPrevalenceRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID33444369
PMCPMC7808627

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.