ArticleObesity (Silver Spring, Md.)2026
Diagnostic Performance of BMI and Waist Circumference in Detecting Excess Adiposity.
Article in Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Assessment of Obesity Beyond Body Mass Index: Adiposity Evaluation, Body-Composition Phenotyping and Disease Staging: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Body Mass Index, Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis, and Waist-to-Hip Ratio Against DEXA for Obesity in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Diagnosis, staging and management of obesity: a synthesis of contemporary guidelines.Nature reviews. Endocrinology · 2026Review
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
Abstract
objectiveThis study compared the diagnostic performance of BMI, waist circumference (WC), and Lancet Commission (LC) criteria for assessing excess adiposity measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) in US adults.
methodsUsing 2011-2018 NHANES data, we included 10,747 adults aged 20-59 years with relevant data. We evaluated the diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values [PPV, NPV], area under the curve [AUC]) of BMI thresholds, waist-based measures, and LC criteria for excess adiposity, as defined by DEXA.
resultsThe weighted prevalence of DEXA-defined excess adiposity was 36.4%. CDC BMI thresholds demonstrated 74.6% sensitivity and 82.2% specificity (PPV, 67.0%; NPV, 87.0%). Waist-based measures showed higher sensitivity and lower specificity than BMI; NHLBI WC thresholds produced 88.5% sensitivity and 66.7% specificity. LC criteria performed variably: BMI plus ≥ 1 waist measure had 74.6% sensitivity and 82.2% specificity, whereas ≥ 2 waist measures had 88.5% sensitivity and 66.8% specificity. The AUC values were 0.876 for BMI, 0.882 for WC, 0.887 for waist to height ratio, and 0.715 for waist to hip ratio.
conclusionsWaist-based definitions were more sensitive than BMI, whereas BMI provided greater specificity. LC criteria performed comparably to existing definitions. Incorporating WC into screening may improve the detection of excess adiposity.
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.