ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2025
Comparison of body adiposity index and body mass index for assessment of body fat percentage among office workers: A validation study.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of Body Mass Index (BMI) and Body Adiposity Index (BAI) in assessing body fat percentage among office workers. Methods: This validation study was carried out among office workers in WAPDA center offices of three districts (Abbottabad, Haripur and Mansehra) in Hazara division of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province from July 2024 to December 2024.Two stage probability sampling was used to select the sample. Data were collected regarding sociodemographics, anthropometric measures, behavioural factors and body fat percentage was obtained through bioimpedance analysis. BMI and BAI were calculated and compared to body fat percentage derived from bioimpedance analysis (reference method). Results: Overall BAI showed better sensitivity of 81% (95%CI =70.6% - 88.9%) than BMI. ROC analysis showed greater AUC value of 0.85 (95% CI=0.79-0.91) in males and 0.97(95% CI=0.95-0.99) in females as compared to BMI (p < 0.05).Multiple linear regression showed age, weight and hip circumference to be positively associated with body fat percent (B values being 0.19, 0.28 and 0.33 respectively) while height, gender and physical activity were negatively associated with body fat percentage (B values -0.38,-0.43 and -0.26 respectively) (p<0.05). Conclusions: BAI is a better predictor of body fat as compared to BMI among office workers and can replace BMI as a screening tool to measure body fat in community settings.
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.