Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38892637›Full record

SynthesisNutrients2024

Validity of Measured vs. Self-Reported Weight and Height and Practical Considerations for Enhancing Reliability in Clinical and Epidemiological Studies: A Systematic Review.

Khadijah Fayyaz, Mo'ath F Bataineh, Habiba I Ali, Ali M Al-Nawaiseh, Rami H Al-Rifai', Hafiz M Shahbaz

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nutrients, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing 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

51 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

6 authors.

Khadijah FayyazDepartment of Nutrition and Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain P.O. Box 15551, United Arab Emirates.ORCID 0009-0004-1153-0143
Mo'ath F BatainehDepartment of Nutrition and Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain P.O. Box 15551, United Arab Emirates.ORCID 0000-0001-8469-9581
Habiba I AliDepartment of Nutrition and Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain P.O. Box 15551, United Arab Emirates.ORCID 0000-0003-2685-1244
Ali M Al-NawaisehDepartment of Sport Rehabilitation, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, The Hashemite University, Zarqa 13133, Jordan.
Rami H Al-Rifai'Department of Public Health Institute, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain P.O. Box 15551, United Arab Emirates.ORCID 0000-0001-6102-0353
Hafiz M ShahbazDepartment of Nutrition and Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain P.O. Box 15551, United Arab Emirates.

Funding

United Arab Emirates University G00004638
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Self-reported measures of height and weight are often used in large epidemiological studies. However, concerns remain regarding the validity and reliability of these self-reported measures. The aim of this systematic review was to summarise and evaluate the comparative validity of measured and self-reported weight and height data and to recommend strategies to improve the reliability of self-reported-data collection across studies. This systematic review adopted the PRISMA guidelines. Four online sources, including PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar, and CINAHL, were utilised. A total of 17,800 articles were screened, and 10 studies were eligible to be included in the SLR based on the defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The findings from the studies revealed good agreement between measured and self-reported weight and height based on intra-class correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman plots. Overall, measured weight and height had higher validity and reliability (ICC > 0.9; LOA < 1 SD). However, due to biases such as social pressure and self-esteem issues, women underreported their weight, while men overreported their height. In essence, self-reported measures remain valuable indicators to supplement the restricted direct anthropometric data, particularly in large-scale surveys. However, it is essential to address potential sources of bias.

Indexed as

Body HeightBody WeightSelf ReportAdultEpidemiologic StudiesFemaleHumansMaleReproducibility of Resultsheightreliabilityself-reportedsystematic reviewvalidityweight

Identifiers

PMID38892637
PMCPMC11175070

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.