This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Ultrasound (US) and skinfold (ST) methods can evaluate the measurement of subcutaneous fat thickness and predict body density. Measurements made with the two techniques at the same spot typically produce different mean estimates of fat thickness. The reproducibility of techniques and the correlation between the points are still unclear in literature. PURPOSE: Evaluate the ratio between methods at different anatomical points according to the size of the fat thickness. METHODS: The sample consisted of 195 Brazilian adults who 106 were female, age 35,1 ± 12,3 years, height 169,1 ± 8,8 cm, weight 74,4 ± 16 kg. The participants were evaluated through ST (Cescorf, Porto Alegre, Brazil) by an anthropometrist Isak level 2 and US model BX 2000 (Intelametrix®, CA, USA) in triceps, subscapular, biceps, iliac, abdominal, thigh, and calf. The Bland e Altman (1986) and Spearman correlation was used to determine the agreement and correlation between methods. RESULTS: Confidence interval values are represented by the dotted line and the BIAS by the dashed line (Figure 1). The BIAS value of the ratios between ST and US ranged from 1.44 (biceps) to 2.25 (thigh). The correlation between the methods for the sum of thicknesses, triceps, thigh, calf, biceps, subscapular, iliac, and abdominal was 0.92; 0.89; 0.89; 0.87; 0.86; 0;81; 0.78 and 0.68, respectively. Triceps, biceps, iliac and the sum had no significant p value for linear regression on the Bland-Altman plot. The other points showed a change in the ratio according to the increase in thickness size, indicating a possible loss of precision in one of the methods. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible that the ST method has less precision in thicker regions, changing the proportion when compared to anatomical points with less fat or easier to measure. Therefore, US can be an alternative for thickness evaluation in overweight and obese people
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bittencourt et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: