ReviewAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2026
Skinfolds Measurement Protocols and Standards: A Narrative Review.
Review in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Skinfold thickness assessment is one of the most widely used anthropometric methods for estimating subcutaneous adipose tissue and overall body adiposity in clinical, epidemiological, and sports settings. Despite its long-standing application, substantial heterogeneity persists across measurement protocols and standardization systems, potentially affecting reproducibility and comparability across studies. This narrative review aims to critically synthesize the historical, conceptual, methodological, and technical development of the main skinfold measurement protocols and standards, systematically compare their characteristics, and examine their methodological and practical implications for research and clinical applications. A targeted bibliographic synthesis of classic textbooks, consensus manuals, and original peer-reviewed studies on surface anthropometry was conducted. Seventeen anatomical skinfold sites and 31 distinct technical descriptions were identified, including 22 site-selection protocols and 9 measurement standards. Five established standards were comparatively analyzed, with emphasis on anatomical landmarking, fold orientation, spatial pinching procedures, and temporal reading control. Similarities were observed in general technical principles, including right-side assessment, perpendicular caliper application, controlled reading time, and maintenance of fold elevation. However, persistent divergences were identified in anatomical definitions, fold orientation, landmark precision, spatial positioning of pinch and caliper jaws, and recommended reading time, with greater heterogeneity at trunk sites than limb sites. Although the reviewed protocols and standards were developed for broad application across age groups, this review primarily reflected their use in adolescents and adults, as skinfold assessment in infants and young children involves additional considerations related to growth dynamics and rapid changes in adipose tissue. Skinfold measurement protocols and standards are not interchangeable and reflect pluralistic, complementary international initiatives rather than a single institutional standardization process.
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.