ArticleDigital health
Smartphone-based abdominal inclination angles for assessing abdominal obesity: Convergent validity and reliability study.
Article in Digital health. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Abdominal obesity is associated with increased cardiometabolic risk, highlighting the need for regular monitoring. However, tape-based waist circumference measurements may be inconvenient for repeated self-monitoring and do not readily support digital recording. Given the widespread availability of smartphones, measuring abdominal inclination angles using a smartphone inclinometer (SI) may be a practical option for assessing abdominal obesity. Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the convergent validity and reliability of SI-derived abdominal inclination angles obtained through examiner- and self-measurements among participants with obesity types ranging from normal weight to type II obesity. Methods: Forty adults underwent abdominal inclination angle measurements using SI. Examiner- and self-measured upper abdomen (UA), lower abdomen (LA), and total abdomen (TA) angles were obtained. Convergent validity was evaluated using Spearman correlations with anthropometric indices. Intra- and inter-rater reliability were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients, standard error of measurement, Bland-Altman analysis, and regression analysis for proportional bias and heteroscedasticity. Results: Self-measured UA and TA angles showed stronger validity with anthropometric indices than examiner measurements. UA and TA angles demonstrated good-to-excellent intra-rater reliability, while inter-rater reliability was moderate. Bland-Altman analyses showed no proportional bias, although heteroscedasticity was observed in self-LA for intra-rater comparisons and in self-UA and self-LA for inter-rater comparisons. Conclusions: SI measurements of abdominal inclination angles demonstrated acceptable validity and reliability, with consistent performance for UA and TA angles, whereas LA measurements showed greater variability and should be interpreted with caution. This method may provide a practical approach for monitoring abdominal obesity in daily life.
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.