4.7 Article

Receiver-operating characteristic analyses of body mass index, waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio for obesity: Screening in young adults in central south of China

Journal

CLINICAL NUTRITION
Volume 25, Issue 6, Pages 1030-1039

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2006.04.009

Keywords

receiver-operating characteristic; body mass index; waist circumference; waist-to-hip ratio; percentage body fat; obesity

Funding

  1. NIAMS NIH HHS [5R01 AR050496-02, K01 AR02170-01A2] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [R01 GM60402] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background & aims: Recent data suggest that current obesity diagnostic criterion based on body mass index (BMI) above 30 in Caucasians may not be appropriate for Asian populations. Our aim was to identify the usefulness of BMI, waist circumference (WC) and waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) in screening for obesity in an Asian population. Methods: A cross-sectional sample of 1109 males and 879 females aged 20-45-yr were recruited. Height, weight, WC, hip circumference and percentage body fat (PBF) were measured in all subjects. Then receiver-operating characteristic analyses were used to evaluate the performances of the three anthropometric indices. Results: BMI, WC and WHR showed strong positive correlation with PBF (r = 0.47-0.75) in both males and females within both age groups. True-positive rates ranged from 82.4% to 94.1% and 68.8% to 86.3% in males and females, respectively. True-negative rates ranged from 64.1% to 84.7% and from 56.9% to 79.0%, respectively. The areas under the curves (AUCs) for WC and BMI were high (0.76-0.92) in both sexes and divided age groups (20-30-yr and 31-45-yr), and those for WHR were a little lower (0.74-0.88). Conclusions: BMI and WC are two important predictors for obesity in Chinese, and WHR is an alternative. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available