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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 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 | 56 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 9% |
| Researcher | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Unknown | 17 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 5% |
| Engineering | 3 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 17 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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
#15,334,706
of 22,808,725 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#130,831
of 194,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,880
of 267,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#4,281
of 6,831 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,808,725 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 267,109 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6,831 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.