Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
PulseExploreJournal ClubResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeJournal ClubExplore
October 29, 2018Scientific ReportsOpen Access

Measurement of mean subcutaneous fat thickness: eight standardised ultrasound sites compared to 216 randomly selected sites

View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Why the study?

Does ultrasound measurement at 8 standardized sites accurately estimate mean subcutaneous fat thickness compared to 216 random sites?

Population

10 participants with BMI <28.5 kg/m² and subcutaneous adipose tissue means ranging from 3 mm to 10 mm

Comparison

Ultrasound measurement of subcutaneous adipose… vs Ultrasound measurement at 216 randomly selected…

Design

Cross-sectional

Authors

PSPaul StörchleWMWolfram MüllerMSMarietta Sengeis

Discussion

Loading...

Member takes

Overview

Eight-site SAT ultrasound may not capture mean thickness for fat mass; leaves open need for expanded protocols in body composition studies.

Structured PICO

Does ultrasound measurement at 8 standardized sites accurately estimate mean subcutaneous fat thickness compared to 216 random sites?

P
Population
10 participants with BMI <28.5 kg/m² and subcutaneous adipose tissue means (from 8 sites) ranging from 3 mm to 10 mm
I
Intervention
Ultrasound measurement of subcutaneous adipose tissue at 8 standardized sites
C
Comparator
Ultrasound measurement at 216 randomly selected sites all over the body
O
Outcome
Mean subcutaneous fat thickness and derivation of a calibration factorsurrogate

A calibration factor of 0.65 is required to accurately estimate whole-body subcutaneous fat mass when using 8 standardized ultrasound measurement sites.

Cite This Study

Störchle et al. (2018) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a7229cd75498292b70b5f8fhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-34213-0
View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share