Key result
Anthropometric measurements like waist and hip circumferences showed stronger correlations with BMI (r=0.624 and r=0.825) than sonographic indices, indicating anthropometry is better for assessing regional adiposity.
Why the study?
Do ultrasonographic measurements of regional adiposity correlate better with BMI and metabolic risk factors than anthropometric measurements in patients with metabolic syndrome?
Cross-Sectional (n=105)
No
Do ultrasonographic measurements of regional adiposity correlate better with BMI and metabolic risk factors than anthropometric measurements in patients with metabolic syndrome?
While sonography is a reliable imaging modality for assessing regional adiposity in metabolic syndrome, simple anthropometric measurements like waist and hip circumferences show better correlation with BMI.
Anthropometric indices correlated more strongly than ultrasound with regional adiposity in metabolic syndrome; leaves open incremental value of imaging.
INTRODUCTION: Metabolic syndrome is complex disorder unifying dyslipidemia, insulin resistance and hyper insulinemia. Rising global epidemic of obesity has tremendous impact on metabolic syndrome. Ultrasound is becoming widely utilized modality for measuring the visceral adiposity. AIM: To determine the usefulness of ultrasonographic measurements in the estimation of regional adiposity and to compare them with anthropometric measurements and to correlate ultrasonographic measurements of regional adiposity and metabolic syndrome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted to compare anthropometry and ultrasonography in assessing the regional adiposity in metabolic syndrome. A total of 105 consecutive participants were included in the study after scrutinizing them for various definable factors of metabolic syndrome. Body Mass Index (BMI) of all participants was calculated and their available serological investigations were gathered. Primarily participants were subjected for anthropometric measurements like waist circumference and hip circumference, further waist/hip ratio was calculated. Following which all participants underwent sonological examination and sonographic indices like intraabdominal fat thickness, preperitoneal fat thickness, minimum and maximum subcutaneous fat thicknesses were measured. Abdominal wall fat index was calculated as ratio of maximum preperitoneal fat thickness to minimum subcutaneous fat thickness. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (Statistical Package Social Science, version-10.0.5) software. A p-value was calculated and values <0.05 were considered as statistically significant. RESULTS: Significant correlation was established between the BMI and waist and hip circumferences. Mild positive correlation was obtained between BMI and sonographic indices like IAF, SCF and PPF with Pearson correlation (r) values of 0.324, 0.585 and 0.211 respectively. Anthropometric measurements showed higher r-values (WC- 0.624 and HC- 0.825) than sonographic indices; indicating anthropometry is better in assessing the regional adiposity than the sonography. CONCLUSION: Sonography can be considered as one of the reliable imaging modality for assessing the regional adiposity but not as better as waist or hip circumferences.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rudresh Hiremath (2017) conducted a cross-sectional in Metabolic syndrome (n=105). Ultrasonographic measurements vs. Anthropometric measurements was evaluated on Correlation of adiposity measurements with Body Mass Index (BMI) (r=0.585 for minimum subcutaneous fat thickness vs r=0.825 for hip circumference, p=<0.001). Anthropometric measurements like waist and hip circumferences showed stronger correlations with BMI (r=0.624 and r=0.825) than sonographic indices, indicating anthropometry is better for assessing regional adiposity.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: