Agreement between mechanical and digital skinfold callipers

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Faria, Ana Catarina Vaz Pinheiro de Furtado
Publication Date: 2023
Other Authors: Martinho, Diogo Vicente, Ribeiro Abreu, Bruno Rafael, Costa Franco, Bruno Rafael, Moreira Carrilho, Lara Alexandre, Azaruja, Madalena Carraça, Tavares Mendes, Pedro Miguel, Simões Serra, Mariana Duarte, Teixeira Lemos, João Alexandre, de Figueiredo, João Paulo
Format: Article
Language: eng
Source: Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
Download full: https://hdl.handle.net/10316/113864
https://doi.org/10.1177/02601060221119247
Summary: Background: Skinfold callipers are often used in clinical practice to estimate subcutaneous adipose tissue thickness. Recently, LipoTool emerged as a potential digital system to measure skinfolds, however comparisons with competing equipment are lacking. Aim: The aim of this study was to test the agreement between two competing skinfold callipers (digital and mechanical). Methods: The sample included 22 healthy male adult participants. A certified observer measured eight skinfolds twice using different skinfold callipers (digital and mechanical). Differences between equipment were tested using Wilcoxon signed rank test The distribution of error was examined using the normality test Results: Differences between skinfold callipers were significantly in five skinfolds: triceps (Z = -3.546; P < 0.001), subscapular (Z = -3.984; P < 0.001), suprailiac (Z = 3.024; P = 0.002), supraspinale (Z = 3.885; P < 0.001), abdominal (Z z=−2.937; P = 0.003), thigh (Z = -2.224; P = 0.026) and calf (Z = -2.052; P = 0.040). Differences between callipers were constant. Conclusions: Mechanical and digital callipers tended to record different values of skinfold thickness. Clinical examination should consider equipment-related variation in fat mass estimation.
id RCAP_62e819ded7c4ef78208dbde3a94aeb01
oai_identifier_str oai:estudogeral.uc.pt:10316/113864
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
repository_id_str https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/7160
spelling Agreement between mechanical and digital skinfold callipersadipose tissueclinical examinationbody compositionanthropometryskinfold thicknessAdultHumansMaleSkinfold ThicknessLower ExtremityLegMuscle, SkeletalBackground: Skinfold callipers are often used in clinical practice to estimate subcutaneous adipose tissue thickness. Recently, LipoTool emerged as a potential digital system to measure skinfolds, however comparisons with competing equipment are lacking. Aim: The aim of this study was to test the agreement between two competing skinfold callipers (digital and mechanical). Methods: The sample included 22 healthy male adult participants. A certified observer measured eight skinfolds twice using different skinfold callipers (digital and mechanical). Differences between equipment were tested using Wilcoxon signed rank test The distribution of error was examined using the normality test Results: Differences between skinfold callipers were significantly in five skinfolds: triceps (Z = -3.546; P < 0.001), subscapular (Z = -3.984; P < 0.001), suprailiac (Z = 3.024; P = 0.002), supraspinale (Z = 3.885; P < 0.001), abdominal (Z z=−2.937; P = 0.003), thigh (Z = -2.224; P = 0.026) and calf (Z = -2.052; P = 0.040). Differences between callipers were constant. Conclusions: Mechanical and digital callipers tended to record different values of skinfold thickness. Clinical examination should consider equipment-related variation in fat mass estimation.SAGE2023-03info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttps://hdl.handle.net/10316/113864https://hdl.handle.net/10316/113864https://doi.org/10.1177/02601060221119247eng0260-10602047-945XFaria, Ana Catarina Vaz Pinheiro de FurtadoMartinho, Diogo VicenteRibeiro Abreu, Bruno RafaelCosta Franco, Bruno RafaelMoreira Carrilho, Lara AlexandreAzaruja, Madalena CarraçaTavares Mendes, Pedro MiguelSimões Serra, Mariana DuarteTeixeira Lemos, João Alexandrede Figueiredo, João Pauloinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiainstacron:RCAAP2024-03-07T11:27:05Zoai:estudogeral.uc.pt:10316/113864Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireinfo@rcaap.ptopendoar:https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/71602025-05-29T06:06:42.840198Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Agreement between mechanical and digital skinfold callipers
title Agreement between mechanical and digital skinfold callipers
spellingShingle Agreement between mechanical and digital skinfold callipers
Faria, Ana Catarina Vaz Pinheiro de Furtado
adipose tissue
clinical examination
body composition
anthropometry
skinfold thickness
Adult
Humans
Male
Skinfold Thickness
Lower Extremity
Leg
Muscle, Skeletal
title_short Agreement between mechanical and digital skinfold callipers
title_full Agreement between mechanical and digital skinfold callipers
title_fullStr Agreement between mechanical and digital skinfold callipers
title_full_unstemmed Agreement between mechanical and digital skinfold callipers
title_sort Agreement between mechanical and digital skinfold callipers
author Faria, Ana Catarina Vaz Pinheiro de Furtado
author_facet Faria, Ana Catarina Vaz Pinheiro de Furtado
Martinho, Diogo Vicente
Ribeiro Abreu, Bruno Rafael
Costa Franco, Bruno Rafael
Moreira Carrilho, Lara Alexandre
Azaruja, Madalena Carraça
Tavares Mendes, Pedro Miguel
Simões Serra, Mariana Duarte
Teixeira Lemos, João Alexandre
de Figueiredo, João Paulo
author_role author
author2 Martinho, Diogo Vicente
Ribeiro Abreu, Bruno Rafael
Costa Franco, Bruno Rafael
Moreira Carrilho, Lara Alexandre
Azaruja, Madalena Carraça
Tavares Mendes, Pedro Miguel
Simões Serra, Mariana Duarte
Teixeira Lemos, João Alexandre
de Figueiredo, João Paulo
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Faria, Ana Catarina Vaz Pinheiro de Furtado
Martinho, Diogo Vicente
Ribeiro Abreu, Bruno Rafael
Costa Franco, Bruno Rafael
Moreira Carrilho, Lara Alexandre
Azaruja, Madalena Carraça
Tavares Mendes, Pedro Miguel
Simões Serra, Mariana Duarte
Teixeira Lemos, João Alexandre
de Figueiredo, João Paulo
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv adipose tissue
clinical examination
body composition
anthropometry
skinfold thickness
Adult
Humans
Male
Skinfold Thickness
Lower Extremity
Leg
Muscle, Skeletal
topic adipose tissue
clinical examination
body composition
anthropometry
skinfold thickness
Adult
Humans
Male
Skinfold Thickness
Lower Extremity
Leg
Muscle, Skeletal
description Background: Skinfold callipers are often used in clinical practice to estimate subcutaneous adipose tissue thickness. Recently, LipoTool emerged as a potential digital system to measure skinfolds, however comparisons with competing equipment are lacking. Aim: The aim of this study was to test the agreement between two competing skinfold callipers (digital and mechanical). Methods: The sample included 22 healthy male adult participants. A certified observer measured eight skinfolds twice using different skinfold callipers (digital and mechanical). Differences between equipment were tested using Wilcoxon signed rank test The distribution of error was examined using the normality test Results: Differences between skinfold callipers were significantly in five skinfolds: triceps (Z = -3.546; P < 0.001), subscapular (Z = -3.984; P < 0.001), suprailiac (Z = 3.024; P = 0.002), supraspinale (Z = 3.885; P < 0.001), abdominal (Z z=−2.937; P = 0.003), thigh (Z = -2.224; P = 0.026) and calf (Z = -2.052; P = 0.040). Differences between callipers were constant. Conclusions: Mechanical and digital callipers tended to record different values of skinfold thickness. Clinical examination should consider equipment-related variation in fat mass estimation.
publishDate 2023
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2023-03
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://hdl.handle.net/10316/113864
https://hdl.handle.net/10316/113864
https://doi.org/10.1177/02601060221119247
url https://hdl.handle.net/10316/113864
https://doi.org/10.1177/02601060221119247
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 0260-1060
2047-945X
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv SAGE
publisher.none.fl_str_mv SAGE
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
collection Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
repository.mail.fl_str_mv info@rcaap.pt
_version_ 1833602579593953280