4.7 Article

Clinical Usefulness of a New Equation for Estimating Body Fat

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 35, 期 2, 页码 383-388

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc11-1334

关键词

-

资金

  1. ISCIII [FIS PI061458, PS09/02330, PI09/91029]
  2. Departments of Health [20/2005, 31/2009]
  3. Education of the Gobierno de Navarra

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE-To assess the predictive capacity of a recently described equation that we have termed CUN-BAE (Clinica Universidad de Navarra-Body Adiposity Estimator) based on BMI, sex, and age for estimating body fat percentage (BF%) and to study its clinical usefulness. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS-We conducted a comparison study of the developed equation with many other anthropometric indices regarding its correlation with actual BF% in a large cohort of 6,510 white subjects from both sexes (67% female) representing a wide range of ages (18-80 years) and adiposity. Additionally, a validation study in a separate cohort (n = 1,149) and a further analysis of the clinical usefulness of this prediction equation regarding its association with cardiometabolic risk factors (n = 634) was carried out. RESULTS-The mean BF% in the cohort of 6,510 subjects determined by air displacement plethysmography was 39.9 +/- 10.1%, and the mean BF% estimated by the CUN-BAE was 39.3 +/- 8.9% (SE of the estimate, 4.66%). In this group, BF% calculated with the CUN-BAE showed the highest correlation with actual BF% (r = 0.89, P < 0.000001) compared with other anthropometric measures or BF% estimators. Similar agreement was found in the validation sample. Moreover, BF% estimated by the CUN-BAE exhibits, in general, better correlations with cardimetabolic risk factors than BMI as well as waist circumference in the subset of 634 subjects. CONCLUSIONS-CUN-BAE is an easy-to-apply predictive equation that may be used as a first screening tool in clinical practice. Furthermore, our equation may be a good tool for identifying patients at cardiovascular and type 2 diabetes risk.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据