ArticleEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2024
Statistical assessment of reliability of anthropometric measurements in the multi-site South African National Dietary Intake Survey 2022.
Article in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Objective measurements of skinfold thickness with a caliper show a significant relationship to total body fat percentage in dogs.Frontiers in veterinary science · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnthropometric data quality in large multicentre nutrition surveys is seldom adequately assessed. In preparation for the South African National Dietary Intake Survey (NDIS-2022), this study assessed site leads' and fieldworkers' intra- and inter-rater reliability for measuring weight, length/height, mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC), waist circumference (WC) and calf circumference (CC).
methodsStandardised training materials and measurement protocols were developed, and new anthropometric equipment was procured. Following two training rounds (12 site lead teams, 46 fieldworker teams), measurement reliability was assessed for both groups, using repeated measurements of volunteers similar to the survey target population. Reliability was statistically assessed using the technical error of measurement (TEM), relative TEM (%TEM), intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of reliability (R). Agreement was visualised with Bland-Altman analysis.
resultsBy %TEM, the best reliability was achieved for weight (%TEM = 0.260-0.923) and length/height (%TEM = 0.434-0.855), and the poorest for MUAC by fieldworkers (%TEM = 2.592-3.199) and WC (%TEM = 2.353-2.945). Whole-sample ICC and R were excellent ( > 0.90) for all parameters except site leads' CC inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.896, R = 0.889) and fieldworkers' inter-rater reliability for MUAC in children under two (ICC = 0.851, R = 0.881). Bland-Altman analysis revealed no significant bias except in fieldworkers' intra-rater reliability of length/height measurement in adolescents/adults ( + 0.220 (0.042, 0.400) cm). Reliability was higher for site leads vs. fieldworkers, for intra-rater vs. inter-rater assessment, and for weight and length/height vs. circumference measurements.
conclusionNDIS-2022 site leads and fieldworkers displayed acceptable reliability in performing anthropometric measurements, highlighting the importance of intensive training and standardised measurement protocols. Ongoing reliability assessment during data collection is recommended.
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.