2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2015.11.025
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of methods to measure body fat in 7-to-10-year-old children: a systematic review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
49
0
2

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 60 publications
(54 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
3
49
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Along with that, we agree with a recent systematic review [12] that concluded that, because BMI and WtHr are easy to obtain, harmless, and affordable, they are good techniques for clinical practice and epidemiological research.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Along with that, we agree with a recent systematic review [12] that concluded that, because BMI and WtHr are easy to obtain, harmless, and affordable, they are good techniques for clinical practice and epidemiological research.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…The significant p values reported in the studies included in this review only reinforce that two methods designed to measure the same variable are related [12,47]. In order to synthesize the results, the confidence intervals would have been more informative.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…To overcome this variability and also to determine, whether, WHtR really has any relationship with BMI, in determining the nutritional status, Pearson correlation was carried out, which showed a moderate correlation between the WHtR and BMI, similar to the study finding of a systematic review has also showed the moderate correlation. 12 Having a positive relationship between the BMI and WHtR, the preference for using WHtR as an anthropometric tool has to be encouraged, as the waist circumference, while effectively determines the visceral abdominal fat composition, WHtR with its single cut-off value also makes it easy for interpretation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Las variables independientes que mejor estimaron la variabilidad de la masa grasa fueron el P (66%), PS (59%) y PT (55%). Estas variables fueron también reportadas en varias ecuaciones desarrolladas previamente (10,28,37,38). El valor de R2 fue de 0,89 y el SRMSE de 0,68 kg; estos resultados son mejores que los señalados en el estudio de Velázquez et al (10) el cual presentó un R2 de 0,72.…”
Section: Figuraunclassified