Agarwal Sunil K, Misra Anoop, Aggarwal Priyanka, Bardia Amit, Goel Ruchika, Vikram Naval K, Wasir Jasjeet S, Hussain Nazia, Ramachandran Krithika, Pandey Ravindra M
Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Obesity (Silver Spring). 2009 May;17(5):1056-61. doi: 10.1038/oby.2008.635. Epub 2009 Jan 22.
Waist circumference (WC) has been advocated as a simple, reliable, and cost-effective measure to understand an individual's cardio-metabolic risk. Although several protocols exist for measuring WC, the variation induced by a few factors has not been investigated. We compared several established and experimental WC measurement protocols to identify factors that may cause variations in WC measurement. In this cross-sectional study, we examined the variations in the measurement of waist circumference (WC) measures carried out in 11 ways differing by anatomical site, posture, respiratory phase, and time since last meal, using repeated measure analysis of variance (using mixed models) after Tukey-Kramer adjustment. We estimated the proportion of variance in percentage of body fat (%BF) and fat-free mass (FFM) explained by each of the WC measures. We studied 123 apparently healthy Asian Indians (75 females), with mean (s.d.) age of 34 (8.7) years and BMI of 23.9 (4.8) kg/m(2). Overall, the mean of WCs measured using the 11 protocols were statistically different. Further, post hoc analysis showed statistically significant, yet mostly small, differences between most of the pairs. No single WC measure explained highest variance in %BF or FFM for both genders. Although, the National Institute of Health (NIH), USA, protocol was convenient and may be less prone to errors, at present it does not control for many variables tested in this study. Measures of WC measured using different protocols were statistically different. We suggest that the site of measurement, posture, phase of respiration, and time since last meal should be standardized for the development of a protocol for measurement of WC for worldwide use.
腰围（WC）已被倡导作为一种简单、可靠且经济高效的指标，用于了解个体的心血管代谢风险。尽管存在多种测量腰围的方案，但一些因素所导致的差异尚未得到研究。我们比较了几种既定的和实验性的腰围测量方案，以确定可能导致腰围测量出现差异的因素。在这项横断面研究中，我们检查了以11种方式进行的腰围（WC）测量的差异，这些方式在解剖部位、姿势、呼吸阶段以及距上次进餐时间方面有所不同，在进行Tukey-Kramer调整后，使用重复测量方差分析（使用混合模型）。我们估计了每种腰围测量方法所解释的体脂百分比（%BF）和去脂体重（FFM）方差的比例。我们研究了123名表面健康的亚洲印度人（75名女性），平均（标准差）年龄为34（8.7）岁，体重指数为23.9（4.8）kg/m²。总体而言，使用这11种方案测量的腰围平均值在统计学上存在差异。此外，事后分析显示，大多数配对之间在统计学上存在显著差异，但大多差异较小。没有单一的腰围测量方法能解释男女的体脂百分比（%BF）或去脂体重（FFM）的最高方差。尽管美国国立卫生研究院（NIH）的方案很方便且可能出错的可能性较小，但目前它并未控制本研究中测试的许多变量。使用不同方案测量的腰围结果在统计学上存在差异。我们建议，为制定一项全球通用的腰围测量方案，应将测量部位、姿势、呼吸阶段以及距上次进餐时间进行标准化。
