Waist Circumference Measurement Methodology Study: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2016.

Q1 Mathematics
Yechiam Ostchega, Rie Seu, Neda Sarafrazi, Guangyu Zhang, Jeffery P Hughes, Ivey Miller
{"title":"Waist Circumference Measurement Methodology Study: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2016.","authors":"Yechiam Ostchega,&nbsp;Rie Seu,&nbsp;Neda Sarafrazi,&nbsp;Guangyu Zhang,&nbsp;Jeffery P Hughes,&nbsp;Ivey Miller","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Objective This report compares five methods of waist circumference (WC) measurements: 1) the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI-WC); 2) the World Health Organization (WHO-WC); 3) the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA-WC) using Gulick II Plus tape; 4) the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA-WC) using Lufkin tape; and 5) assisted self-measurement over clothes (MESA-assisted). Method During 2016, measurements were obtained from 2,297 participants aged 20 and over, who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The mean differences and sensitivity and specificity for abdominal obesity (AO) were calculated between the NHLBI-WC (reference) and the other four WC measurements. Results The mean difference between NHLBI-WC and WHO-WC was 0.81 cm for men and 3.21 cm for women ( p ≤ 0.0125 for both); between NHLBI-WC and MESA-WC (Gulick) was -0.68 cm for men ( p ≤ 0.0125) and -0.89 cm for women; between NHLBI-WC and MESA-WC (Lufkin) was 0.02 cm for men and 0.08 cm for women; and between NHLBI-WC and MESA-assisted was -0.71 cm for men and 1.34 cm for women ( p ≤ 0.0125 for both). Sensitivity and specificity for AO, with NHLBI-WC as a reference, for men were greater than 90% for all methods; for women, sensitivity and specificity for AO for MESA-WC (Lufkin) were greater than 90%; for women, WHO-WC, MESAWC (Gulick), and MESA-assisted methods were greater than 85%.</p>","PeriodicalId":23577,"journal":{"name":"Vital and health statistics. Series 2, Data evaluation and methods research","volume":" 182","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vital and health statistics. Series 2, Data evaluation and methods research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Mathematics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective This report compares five methods of waist circumference (WC) measurements: 1) the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI-WC); 2) the World Health Organization (WHO-WC); 3) the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA-WC) using Gulick II Plus tape; 4) the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA-WC) using Lufkin tape; and 5) assisted self-measurement over clothes (MESA-assisted). Method During 2016, measurements were obtained from 2,297 participants aged 20 and over, who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The mean differences and sensitivity and specificity for abdominal obesity (AO) were calculated between the NHLBI-WC (reference) and the other four WC measurements. Results The mean difference between NHLBI-WC and WHO-WC was 0.81 cm for men and 3.21 cm for women ( p ≤ 0.0125 for both); between NHLBI-WC and MESA-WC (Gulick) was -0.68 cm for men ( p ≤ 0.0125) and -0.89 cm for women; between NHLBI-WC and MESA-WC (Lufkin) was 0.02 cm for men and 0.08 cm for women; and between NHLBI-WC and MESA-assisted was -0.71 cm for men and 1.34 cm for women ( p ≤ 0.0125 for both). Sensitivity and specificity for AO, with NHLBI-WC as a reference, for men were greater than 90% for all methods; for women, sensitivity and specificity for AO for MESA-WC (Lufkin) were greater than 90%; for women, WHO-WC, MESAWC (Gulick), and MESA-assisted methods were greater than 85%.

腰围测量方法研究:2016年全国健康与营养调查。
目的比较五种测量腰围(WC)的方法:1)美国国家心肺血液研究所(NHLBI-WC);2)世界卫生组织(WHO-WC);3)使用Gulick II Plus胶带进行动脉粥样硬化多民族研究(MESA-WC);4) Lufkin胶带多民族动脉粥样硬化研究(MESA-WC);5)辅助服装自我测量(mesa辅助)。方法2016年,对参加全国健康与营养检查调查(NHANES)的2297名20岁及以上的参与者进行测量。计算NHLBI-WC(参考)与其他四种WC测量之间腹部肥胖(AO)的平均差异和敏感性和特异性。结果NHLBI-WC与WHO-WC的平均差异男性为0.81 cm,女性为3.21 cm (p≤0.0125);NHLBI-WC与MESA-WC (Gulick)男性差异为-0.68 cm (p≤0.0125),女性差异为-0.89 cm;NHLBI-WC与MESA-WC (Lufkin)的差异男性为0.02 cm,女性为0.08 cm;NHLBI-WC与MESA-assisted之间男性为-0.71 cm,女性为1.34 cm (p≤0.0125)。以NHLBI-WC为参考,AO对男性的敏感性和特异性均大于90%;对于女性,AO对MESA-WC的敏感性和特异性大于90% (Lufkin);对于女性,WHO-WC、MESAWC (Gulick)和mesa辅助方法均大于85%。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Studies of new statistical methodology including experimental tests of new survey methods, studies of vital statistics collection methods, new analytical techniques, objective evaluations of reliability of collected data, and contributions to statistical theory. Studies also include comparison of U.S. methodology with those of other countries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信