↓ Skip to main content

Optimal Central Obesity Measurement Site for Assessing Cardiometabolic and Type 2 Diabetes Risk in Middle-Aged Adults

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Optimal Central Obesity Measurement Site for Assessing Cardiometabolic and Type 2 Diabetes Risk in Middle-Aged Adults
Published in
PLOS ONE, June 2015
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0129088
Pubmed ID
Authors

Seán R. Millar, Ivan J. Perry, Jan Van den Broeck, Catherine M. Phillips

Abstract

Despite recommendations that central obesity assessment should be employed as a marker of cardiometabolic health, no consensus exists regarding measurement protocol. This study examined a range of anthropometric variables and their relationships with cardiometabolic features and type 2 diabetes in order to ascertain whether measurement site influences discriminatory accuracy. In particular, we compared waist circumference (WC) measured at two sites: (1) immediately below the lowest rib (WC rib) and (2) between the lowest rib and iliac crest (WC midway), which has been recommended by the World Health Organisation and International Diabetes Federation. This was a cross-sectional study involving a random sample of 2,002 men and women aged 46-73 years. Metabolic profiles and WC, hip circumference, pelvic width and body mass index (BMI) were determined. Correlation, logistic regression and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were used to evaluate obesity measurement relationships with metabolic risk phenotypes and type 2 diabetes. WC rib measures displayed the strongest associations with non-optimal lipid and lipoprotein levels, high blood pressure, insulin resistance, impaired fasting glucose, a clustering of metabolic risk features and type 2 diabetes, in both genders. Rib-derived indices improved discrimination of type 2 diabetes by 3-7% compared to BMI and 2-6% compared to WC midway (in men) and 5-7% compared to BMI and 4-6% compared to WC midway (in women). A prediction model including BMI and central obesity displayed a significantly higher area under the curve for WC rib (0.78, P=0.003), Rib/height ratio (0.80, P<0.001), Rib/pelvis ratio (0.79, P<0.001), but not for WC midway (0.75, P=0.127), when compared to one with BMI alone (0.74). WC rib is easier to assess and our data suggest that it is a better method for determining obesity-related cardiometabolic risk than WC midway. The clinical utility of rib-derived indices, or alternative WC measurements, deserves further investigation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
Taiwan 1 2%
Unknown 45 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 17%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Student > Postgraduate 5 11%
Researcher 4 9%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 11 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Engineering 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 11 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 10 June 2015.
All research outputs
#2,583,206
of 5,214,547 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#46,837
of 91,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,262
of 175,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,404
of 6,300 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,214,547 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 91,511 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 175,526 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6,300 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.