↓ Skip to main content

Accuracy of anthropometric measurements by general practitioners in overweight and obese patients

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Obesity, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Accuracy of anthropometric measurements by general practitioners in overweight and obese patients
Published in
BMC Obesity, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40608-017-0158-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul Sebo, François R. Herrmann, Dagmar M. Haller

Abstract

We recently showed that abdominal obesity measurements (waist and hip circumference, waist-to-hip ratio) were inaccurate when performed by general practitioners (GPs). We hypothesise that measurement error could be even higher in overweight and obese patients due to difficulty in locating anatomical landmarks. We aimed to estimate GPs' measurement error of general (weight, height and body mass index (BMI)) and abdominal obesity measurements across BMI subgroups. This cross-sectional study involved 26 GPs in Geneva, Switzerland. They were asked to take measurements on 20 volunteers within their practice. Two trained research assistants repeated the measures after the GPs ("gold standard"). The proportion of measurement error was computed by comparing the GPs' values (N = 509) to the average value of two measurements taken in turn by the research assistants and stratified by BMI subgroup (normal/underweight: <25 kg/m(2), overweight: 25 ≤ BMI < 30 kg/m(2), obese: ≥30 kg/m(2)). General obesity measurements were less prone to measurement error than abdominal obesity measurements, regardless of the BMI subgroup. The proportions of error increased across BMI subgroups (except for height), and were particularly high for abdominal obesity measurements in obese patients. Abdominal obesity measurements are particularly inaccurate when GPs use these measurements to assess overweight and obese patients. These findings add further strength to recommendations for GPs to favour use of general obesity measurements in daily practice, particularly when assessing overweight or obese patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 91 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 21%
Student > Bachelor 18 20%
Student > Postgraduate 8 9%
Researcher 4 4%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 4%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 31 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 21 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 16%
Sports and Recreations 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 38 42%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 July 2017.
All research outputs
#4,429,679
of 16,504,839 outputs
Outputs from BMC Obesity
#69
of 182 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,370
of 270,248 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Obesity
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,504,839 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 182 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 270,248 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them