Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Overeenstemming tussen antropometrische methoden voor de bepaling van de gewichtsstatus

  • Wetenschappelijke artikelen
  • Published:
TSG Aims and scope

Samenvatting

Doel: Onderzoek naar de overeenstemming tussen gewichtsstatus classificaties (ondergewicht, normaal gewicht, overgewicht, ernstig overgewicht) op basis van vier antropometrische methoden: Body Mass Index (BMI), buikomvang, Vet Vrije Massa Index (VVMI) en huidplooimeting. Methoden: De onderzoeksgroep bestond uit 91 personen (27 mannen en 64 vrouwen) in de leeftijd van 18-63 jaar. Gewichtsstatus werd bepaald via BMI, buikomvang, VVMI en huidplooimeting afzonderlijk. Overeenstemming in classificatie op basis van de vier maten werd berekend door middel van Cohens kappa. Resultaten: De overeenstemmingen tussen de vier methoden ten aan zien van gewichtsstatus bleken laag. Dat gold ook ten aanzien van bijna alle overeenstemmingen in aparte analyses naar geslacht en leeftijd. Conclusie: Er is weinig overeenstemming tussen de vier methoden bij het classificeren van de onderzoekspersonen naar gewichtsstatus. Nader onderzoek naar de voordelen, nadelen en validiteit van de methoden is wenselijk.

Abstract

Congruence among anthropometric indicators identifying the weight status

Objective: To examine the congruence in weight status classification according to four anthropometric weight status methods: Body Mass Index (BMI), waist circumference, Fat Free Mass Index (FFMI) and skin fold thickness. Methods: The study sample consisted of 91 adult subjects. Weight status of all subjects was determined in terms of ‘underweight’, ‘normal weight’, ‘overweight’ and ‘obese’ on the basis of each of four anthropometric methods (BMI, waist circumference, FFMI and skin fold thickness). Congruence between classifications was calculated using Cohen’s kappa. Results: The results of the study show different percentages per weight category when measured by the four anthropometric methods. All intertest agreements proved to be low in the total study group. This also counted for almost all agreements in separate analyses for gender and age. Conclusion: Outcomes of the four methods hardly agree with respect to classifying the study population in weight status. Further research into the strengths, weaknesses and validity of the methods is needed.

Keywords: weight status, congruence, anthropometric indicators

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Literatuur

  1. World Health Organization. Obesity and overweight. Geneva: WHO, 2008. http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/facts/obesity/en/ [updated 2009; cited 2009 March 19].

  2. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, Zelfgerapporteerde medische consumptie, gezondheid en leefstijl. http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=03799&D1=267-271&D2=0-17&D3=0&D4=a&VW=T [updated 2009 March 17; cited 2009 March 19].

  3. RIVM. Lichaamsgewicht – de determinant, gezondheidsgevolgen en oorzaken. http://www.rivm.nl/vtv/object_document/o1252n18950.html [updated 2008 December 18; cited 2009 March 19].

  4. World Health Organization. Physical status: the use and interpretation of anthropometry. WHO technical report series, 854. Geneva: WHO; 1995.

  5. Pichard C, Kyle U, Bracco D, Slosman D, Morabia A. & Schutz, Y. Reference calues of fat-free and fat masses by bioelectrical impedance analysis in 3393 healthy subjects. Nutrition 2000;16:245-54.

  6. Visscher T, Seidell J, Molarius A, Van der Kuip D, Hofman A, Witteman J. A comparison of body mass index, waist-hip ratio and waist circumference as predictors of all-cause mortality among the elderly: the Rotterdam study. Int J Obesity 2001;25:1730-5.

  7. Kyle U, Genton L, Karsegard L, Slosman D, Pichard C. Single prediction equation for bioeletrical impedance analysis in adults aged 20-94 years. Nutrition 2001;17:248-53.

  8. Verstraelen CJF, Maaskant MA, Knijff-Raeven AGM van, Curfs LMG, Schrojenstein Lantman - de Valk HMJ van. Weighting the weights: agreement among anthropometric indicators identifying the weight status of people with intellectual disabilities. J Appl Res Intellectual Disabilities 2009;22:307-13.

  9. Lean M, Han T, Morrison C. Waist circumference as a measure for indicating need for weight management. Br Med J 1995;311:158-61.

  10. Rimmer J, Kelly L. Accuracy of anthropometric equations for estimating body composition of mentally retarded adults. Am J Ment Def 1987;91:626-32.

  11. Durnin J, Womersley J. Body fat assessed from total body density and its estimation from skinfold thickness: measurements on 481 men and women aged from 16 to 72 years. Br J Nutr 1974;32:77-97.

  12. Jackson A, Pollock M, Ward A. Generalized equations for predicting body density of women. Med Science Sports Exercise 1980;12:175-82.

  13. Siri W, Lawrence J, Tobias C. Gross composition of the body. Adv Biol Med Physics 1956;4:239-80.

  14. Pi-Sunyer FX. Obesity: criteria and classification. Proc Nutrition Society 2000;59:505-9.

  15. Landis J, Koch G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-74.

  16. Yperen T van. Multi-axale clasificatie van specifieke ontwikkelingsstoornissen. Een studie over het as II van het MAC. Leiden: Leiden University, 1990.

  17. Food and Agricultue Organization of the United Nations. BMI as a reflection of the body energy stores. http://www.fao.org/docrep/t1970e/t1970e03.htm [updated 1994; cited 2009 March 19].

  18. Ulijaszek S, Kerr D. Antropometric measurement error and the assessment of nutritional status. Br J Nutrition 1999;82:165-77.

  19. Bagust A, Walley T. An alternative to body mass index for standardizing body weight for stature. Quart J Medicine 2000;93:589-6.

  20. Schultz Y, Kyle U, Pichard C. Fat-free mass index and fat mass index percentiles in Caucasians aged 18-98y. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2002;26:953-60.

  21. Han T, Seidell J. Curral J, Morrison C, Deurenber P, Lean M. The influences of height and age on waist circumference as an index of adiposity in adults. Int J Obesity 1997;21:83-9.

  22. Janssen I, Katzmarzyk P, Ross R. Body mass index, waist circumference, and health risk: evidence in support of current National Institutes of Health guidelines. Arch Intern Med. 2002;62:2074-9.

  23. Lean M, Han T, Deurenberg P. Predicting body composition by densitometry from simple anthropometric measurement. Am J Clin Nutrition 1996;63:4-14.

  24. Lean M, Han T. Waist worries. Am J Clin Nutrition 2002;76:699-700.

  25. Nádas J, Putz Z, Kolev G, Nagy S, Jermendy G. Intraobserver and interobeserver variability of measuring waist circumference. Med Science Monitor 2008;14(1):CR15-18.

  26. Moreno L, Joyanes M, Mesana M et al. Harmonization of anthropometric measurements for a multicenter nutrition survey in Spanish adolescents. Nutrition 2003;19:481-6.

  27. Wang J, Thornton J, Bari S et al. Comparisons of waist circumferences measured at 4 sites. Am J Clin Nutrition 2003;77,379-84.

  28. Steward S, Bramley P, Heighton R et al. Estimation of body composition from bioelectrical impedance of body segments: comparison with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Br J Nutrition 1993;69:645-55.

  29. Jackon A, Pollock M, Graves J, Mahar M. Reliability and validity of bioeletrical impedance in determining body composition. J Appli Physiol 1988;64:529-34.

  30. Bray G. Determining body composition in adults. http://www.uptodate.com/patients/content/topic.do?topicKey=obesity/7584 [updated 2008 October; cited 2009 March 19].

  31. Williams C, Bale P. Bias and limits of agreement between hydrodensitometry, bioelectrical impedance and skinfold capilers measures of percentage body fat. Eur J Appl Physiol1998;77:271-7.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. www.bsl.nl/shop/tijdschrift-vgezondheidswetenschappen-1388-7491.html

    I. Everink

Authors
  1. I. Everink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. A. Maaskant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. G. M. van Knijff-Raeven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. H. M. J. Schrojenstein Lantman-de van Valk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. W. H. E. Buntinx
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Maastricht University

Stichting Pergamijn, Echt

afdeling Eerstelijnsgeneeskunde, UMC St Radboud

Gouverneur Kremers Centrum, Maastricht University

Marian Maaskant, Stichting Pergamijn, Postbus 40, NL-6100 AA Echt, tel. 0475-479535,

Voor publicatie aanvaard in maart 2010.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Everink, I., Maaskant, M.A., van Knijff-Raeven, A.G.M. et al. Overeenstemming tussen antropometrische methoden voor de bepaling van de gewichtsstatus. TVGW 88, 190–195 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03089595

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03089595

Search

Navigation