ArticleEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2026
Discrepancies between caliper and portable A-mode ultrasound estimates of subcutaneous fat in older adults.
Article in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It has been proposed that subcutaneous fat thickness measured by ultrasound corresponds to half of the skinfold thickness measured with calipers at the same anatomical site. This study compared portable A-mode ultrasound and caliper skinfold assessments in older adults. In a cross-sectional sample of 146 participants, fat thickness was measured at the biceps brachii, triceps brachii, subscapular, and suprailiac sites using a BodyMetrix® BX-2000 ultrasound device and a LipoWise PRO digital caliper. Agreement between methods varied markedly by site: Lin's concordance correlation coefficients were 0.21 (triceps), 0.02 (subscapular), and 0.33 (biceps, suprailiac), indicating poor to moderate concordance. The Bradley-Blackwood test showed differences between methods (p < 0.001). Skinfold/ultrasound mean ratios were 1.50 (triceps), 1.20 (biceps), 1.50 (suprailiac), and 2.90 (subscapular). Caliper skinfold measurements consistently overestimate subcutaneous fat thickness versus ultrasound, especially at the subscapular site, limiting interchangeability and potentially compromising clinical assessment accuracy in older adult populations.
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.