anthropometry measurement

6. Anthropometric measurements

Obesity, is one of the know risk factors for cardiovascular and other chronic diseases. It can

be measured using weight and height and is usually assessed by body mass index (BMI), i.e.

weight in kilograms divided by square of height in meters. Waist-to-hip ratio as well as waist

circumference alone can be used as an indicator for abdominal obesity. Several other

methods, like skinfold thickness, are used to measure body fat, but there are no uniform

methods available for them and they will be not further discussed in this report.

The main focus of this chapter will be on weight and height measurement. Issues relating to

waist and hip circumference measurement will also be considered.

6.1 Methods

Most people are aware of their height and weight. Therefore, data on weight and height can be

obtained through a questionnaire. However, there are problems with self-reported data that are

usually based on not very accurate bathroom scales. Also, systematic biases have been found

between measured and self-reported weight and height. (1, 2). Self-reported weight tends to

be lower than measured weight. The reverse is true for self-reported height. As a result, BMI

tends to be under-estimated if it is based on self-reported data , and does not necessarily

facilitate the comparison between populations or within populations over time. The magnitude

of these biases varies from population to population, is age and sex dependent, and also may

vary in time. Therefore, for cardiovascular risk factor surveys, actual weight and height

measurements should be made. It is easy to make accurate measurements, provided that the

proper equipment, well standardized methods, and trained personnel are used.

6.1.1 Type of scale

A traditional balanced beam scale has been considered a reliable instrument for population

measurement. In the past years, they have often been replaced by electronic digital scales,

which are easier to operate. The problem with digital scales is that they are usually impossible

to calibrate. The accuracy of bathroom scales is not sufficient for population measurement.

WHO MONICA Project

In the WHO MONICA Project, the use of balanced beam scales was recommended. If digital

scales were used, testing with standard weights was of particular importance. The floor

surface on which the scale rests must be hard and should not be carpeted or covered with

other soft material. The scale should be balanced at zero weights (3). Both digital and

balanced beam scales were used. A few centres used a bathroom scale during home visits,

when the subject was unable to attend the examination site (4).

Risk factor monitoring in the Netherlands

In the Monitoring Project on Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factor and the MORGEN-project

the balanced beam scales were used (5). In the REGENBOOG project each Municipal Health

Centre used their own scales, which were either balanced beam scales or digital ones (6).

Risk factor monitoring in Germany

The German Federal Health Survey 1998 used balanced beam scales (7).

UK National Health Surveys

In the National Health Surveys in the UK electronic bathroom scales with digital display were

used (8).

NHANES III

In NHANES III an electronic digital scale with the kilogram mode was used (9).

6.1.2 Type of height measurement instrument

WHO MONICA Project

The MONICA Manual instructs: Height is measured in conjunction with the weight

measurement. It may precede or follow this procedure. The height ruler must be taped

vertically to a hard flat surface, with no molding (skirting board), with the base at floor level.

A carpenter's level should be used to ensure vertical placement of the rule. The floor surface

must be hard (tile, cement, etc.) and must not be carpeted or be covered with other soft

materials. If only a carpeted surface is available, a wooden platform should be placed on the

carpet to serve as a reference for the height measurement (3).


In the Monitoring Project on Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors in the Netherlands a wall-

mounted stadiometer was used (10). In the REGENBOOG project each Municipal Health

Centre used their own height measuring device, which in most cases was wall-mounted

measuring tape (6).


The German Federal Health Survey 1998 used a height rod that was attached to the balanced

beam scales (7).


The National Health Surveys in the UK used a portable stadiometer with a collapsible device

with a sliding head plate, a base plate and three contacting rods marked with a measuring

scale (8). The Health Survey of England 1999 introduced the demi-span measure (11) as an

alternative size measure for persons who had difficulty standing straight (12).

NHANES III

In NHANES III a stadiometer was used (9).

6.1.3 Type of measurement tape for waist and hip circumference measurement

WHO MONICA Project

In the WHO MONICA Project it is recommended that a plastic metric tape is used. The tape

should be held firmly and its horizontal position should be ensured. The two sides of the tape

should be differently colored or have a scale only on one side. If the tape is uniformly colored,

with readings on both sides, one side should be blanked out. (3)


In the Monitoring Project on Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors, the MORGEN-project and

the REGENBOOG project the household measuring tape was used (5, 6).


In the National Health Surveys in the UK an insertion tape calibrated in mm, with a metal

buckle at one end was used (8).

NHANES III

In NHANES III a insertion tape calibrated in mm, with a metal buckle at one end was used

(9).

Other surveys

No information on tape measure was found for Risk factor monitoring in Germany.

6.1.4 Removal of clothes

WHO MONICA Project

According to the WHO MONICA Project protocol the participant had to remove his/her shoes

and heavy outer garments (jacket, coat, etc.) before weight and height measurements were

made (3). It was recommended that the circumference of waist and hip be measured while

subjects were semi-clothed, i.e. waist uncovered with the subjects wearing underwear only. If

it was not possible to follow this procedure in a centre, the alternative was to measure the

circumference on subjects without heavy outer garments with all tight clothing, including the

belt, loosened and with the pockets emptied. (3) All MONICA centres asked the subject to

remove heavy outer garments before measurement of waist and hip circumference. About half

of the centres asked also to remove other garments before measurement. (4)


In the Monitoring Project on Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors and the MORGEN-project

in the Netherlands, subjects were asked to remove their outdoor clothes and shoes before

anthropometric measurements were taken (5, 10). In the REGENBOOG, subjects were asked

to remove their shoes and trousers/skirts before the anthropometrical measurements (13).


The German Federal Health Survey 1998 measured height, weight, and waist and hip

circumference after the subject removed shoes and heavy clothing (7).


In the National Health Surveys in UK the subjects were asked to remove their outdoor clothes

and shoes before anthropometric measurements were made (8).

NHANES III

In NHANES III subjects were asked to remove their outdoor clothes and shoes before

anthropometric measurements were made (9).

6.1.5 Technique and resolution of weight measurement

Measurement of weight to the nearest full kilogram should be sufficient for the precise

estimation of the population mean value of weight. However, a biased rounding to the nearest

kilogram may be subjective and cause systematic error. Therefore, the resolution of

measurement should be chosen such that it corresponds to the natural resolution of the type of

scale used. For a balanced beam scale it is usually 200g/100g, and less for a digital scale.

WHO MONICA Project

The MONICA Manual (3) gives the following instructions for the technique of weight

measurement:

The participant should stand in the centre of the platform as standing off-centre may affect

measurement.

The weights are moved until the beam balances (the arrows are aligned).

The weight is read and recorded on the form. Record weights to the nearest 200 g.

Self-reported weights are not acceptable in mobile persons. Refusals to be weighed should be

recorded as refusals. Only participants who are immobile (e.g. amputees) may self-report their

weights. Be sure to note this on the form. Participants must not read the scales themselves.

About half of the centres measured weight to the nearest 200 g and the other half to the

nearest 100 g, but other resolutions were also used (4).



in the Netherlands the weight was measured to the nearest 100 g. (5, 10). In the

REGENBOOG project the weight was measured to the nearest 500 g. The subject was asked

to stand in the middle of the scale, feet apart from each other during the weighing. (13)


The German Federal Health Survey 1998 protocol required the weight to be measured to the

nearest 100 g. If a persons was heavier than 150 kg, a comment was to be entered in the data

sheet to prevent such an extreme measurement to be flagged as "suspicious" (7).


In the National Health Surveys in UK weight was measured to the nearest 100 g (8).

NHANES III

In NHANES III the weight was measured to the nearest 10 g (9).

6.1.6 Technique and resolution of height measurement

WHO MONICA Project

The WHO MONICA Manual instructs: The participant is asked to remove his/her shoes and

heavy outer garments. To measure height, the participant should stand with his/her back to the

height rule. The back of the head, back, buttocks, calves and heels should be touching the

upright, feet together. The top of the external auditory meatus (ear canal) should be level with

the inferior margin of the bony orbit (cheek bone). The position is aided by asking participant

to hold the head in a position where he/she can look straight at a spot, head high, on the

opposite wall. Place the triangle on the height rule and slide down to the head so that the hair

(if present) is pressed flat (3).

The MONICA Manual recommended to record information about the height measurement on

the survey form to the nearest centimetre (3). Nevertheless, many centres recorded it to the

nearest half a centimetre (4)



in the Netherlands the subject should be standing in upright position against the wall with the

feet at a 45o angle. The height was measured to the nearest 0.5 cm. (5, 10) In the

REGENBOOG project the height was measured to the nearest 0.5 cm. The subject was asked

to stand straight, heels together and feet in 45o angle. (13)


In the German Federal Health Survey 1998 subjects were positioned with the back to the

measuring rod. Back of the head, back, and buttocks had to touch the measuring rod. Feet had

to be close together. Subjects were asked to stand upright and avoid forced breathing. The

measurement was made to the closest 0.5 cm. (7) (A paper by Bergmann KE et al. (14) claims

a precision of 0.1 cm for height measurements).


In the National Health Surveys in the UK the subject was instructed to stretch to the

maximum height and to position the head in the Frankfort plane (eye-ear plane). The reading

was recorded to the nearest 0.1 cm. (8)

NHANES III

In NHANES III the subject was asked to stand straight on the floor board of the stadiometer

with his/her back to the vertical backboard of the stadiometer. The weight should be evenly

distributed on both feet and feet should point slightly outwards at a 60o angle. The horizontal

bar is lowered to the crown of the head with sufficient pressure to compress the hair. The

height was measured to the nearest 0.1 cm. (9)

6.1.7 Technique and resolution of waist and hip measurement

To be able to compare the waist measurements between studies the method of the

measurement needs to be the same. If the waist circumference is measured at the narrowest

portion of the torso, the circumference can, on average, be 10 cm less than when measured

directly above the iliac crest (15).

WHO MONICA Project

In the WHO MONICA Project it is recommended to record the measurement of the waist

circumference at a level midway between the lower rib margin and iliac crest in cm to the

nearest 0.0 or 0.5 cm. Example: If the exact measurement is 87.7 cm, code the item 0875. The

maximum hip circumference over the buttocks should be recorded in cm to the nearest 0.0 or

0.5 cm. Example: if the exact measurement is 93.2 cm, code the item 0930. (3)

In the final survey all populations followed the MONICA protocol. In general, measurements

of waist and hip circumference were made to the nearest 0.5 cm. There were eight centres

which made the measurements to the nearest 1 cm. (16)



the REGENBOOG project the waist and hip circumferences were recorded to the nearest 0.5

cm. The waist circumference was measured from the position between lower rib and upper

side of the pelvis. The hip circumference was measured from the widest position. [(5, 13)


In the German Federal Health Survey 1998 waist circumference was measured at the

narrowest portion between the lower rib margin and the upper margin of the iliac crest. Hip

circumference was to be measured as the maximal circumference between the upper margin

of the iliac crest and the crotch (7).


In the National Health Surveys in the UK the waist circumference was measured from the

midpoint between the lower rib and the upper margin of the iliac crest and hip circumference

from the widest circumference around the buttocks below the iliac crest. Both circumferences

were measured to the nearest 0.1 cm. (8)

NHANES III

In NHANES III the waist circumference was measured from the high point of the iliac crest

and the hip circumference from the maximum extension of the buttocks. Both circumferences

were measured to the nearest 0.1 cm. (9)

6.1.8 Use of self-reported data

The self-reported data of the height is more likely to overestimate the real height. For the

weight, lean persons tend to overestimate their weight and obese persons underestimate. (1, 2)

WHO MONICA Project

In the WHO MONICA Project, self-reported weights and heights were not acceptable in

mobile persons. Those who refused to be measured were to be recorded as refusals. Only for

participants who were immobile (e.g. amputees) could self-report weights be used (3).



the REGENBOOG project no self-reported data were accepted (5).

Other surveys

No information on the use of self-reported data was found for: Risk factor monitoring in

Germany, UK National Health Surveys, and NHANES III.

6.2 Quality assurance

6.2.1 Selection of measurers

WHO MONICA Project

MONICA did not have any instructions for the selection of measurers.

Other surveys

There was also no information on selection of personnel for anthropometric measurements

available for Risk factor monitoring in The Netherlands, Risk factor monitoring in Germany,

UK National Health Surveys, and NHANES III.

6.2.2 Training of the measurers

WHO MONICA Project

In the WHO MONICA Project, seminars were organized to train the persons who were

responsible for the surveys in each population. These then conducted the training of the local

measurers for anthropometric measurements in each population.

There is no general instruction in the WHO MONICA Project about the monitoring of

terminal digit preference in the waist and hip circumference measurements. In populations

where the accuracy of the measurement was 0.5 cm, the zero preference was seen in half of

the populations in waist and hip circumference measurements. (16)


The survey personnel of the German Federal Health Survey 1998 was trained by a

commercial company in all aspects of data collection. The performance of the personnel,

especially the adherence to the protocol, was assessed during surprise site visits (17).

EPIC-Germany Study

Each person of the field staff in the Epic-Germany Study was trained in all aspects of data

collection, so that one person could obtain all data from a study participant. The training was

conducted by external experts in interview techniques and anthropometric measurements. It

consisted of one week of lectures and practical experience, followed by certification. (18)

Other surveys

There was no information available in the literature on the type of training of personnel for

anthropometric measurements for Risk factor monitoring in the Netherlands, UK National

Health Surveys, and NHANES III.

6.2.3 Testing the scales

The inaccuracy of the scale can cause bias for the population mean weight.

WHO MONICA Project

In the WHO MONICA Project, it was recommended to check the scales using standard

weights at least monthly and whenever the scales are installed at a new location. If the error

was more than 1 kg the measurements taken since the scales were last checked should not

have been used or reported to the MONICA Data Centre (MDC). Scales were to be checked

for the zero level every day before starting measurement and immediately afterwards. If there

was an error of more than 1 kg, the measurements taken since the scales were last checked

should not have been be used or reported to the MDC. (3)

In the MONICA surveys different centres tested scales at very different frequency during the

surveys. In a few populations the scales were not checked at all and in a few centres scales

were tested daily. In most centres scales were tested on a weekly or monthly basis (4).


In the REGENBOOG project the scales were calibrated by manufacture of the scales (6).


The description of the German Federal Health Survey 1998 states that equipment for

anthropometric measurements was checked and calibrated daily, but it does not go into

details.

EPIC-Germany Study

The electronic scales used in the EPIC-Germany Study were controlled for measurement

accuracy and technical correctness several times per year, as required by the German Bureau

of Standardization (18)

NHANES III

In NHANES III it was prescribed that the scales should be calibrated at the beginning and end

of each stand (of the mobile examination centre) by using calibration weights (9).

Other surveys

No information on calibration of scales was found for UK National Health Surveys.

6.2.4 Testing height measuring device

WHO MONICA Project

If a height ruler taped to the wall was used for height measurement, the WHO MONICA

manual recommended that the correct vertical position of the ruler was to be checked daily

and corrected as necessary. If the position of the ruler was found to be inaccurate by more

than 1 cm, the measurements taken since the ruler was last checked should not have been used

or reported to the MDC (3).

EPIC-Germany Study

The anthropometers used in the EPIC-Germany Study were controlled for measurement

accuracy and technical correctness several times per year with standard references. (18)


In the REGENBOOG project the height measuring device was tested with wooden centimeter

(6).

NHANES III

In NHANES III it was recommended that the stadiometer be calibrated with calibration rods

at the beginning of each stand, once every two weeks, and at the end of each stand after all

examinations (9).

Other surveys

UK National Health Surveys, and Risk factor monitoring in Germany used stadiometers or

height rod respectively, but no information was found whether and how these devices were to

be calibrated.

6.2.5 Testing of measuring tape for waist/hip measurements

WHO MONICA Project

The MONICA Manual requires that the length of the tape used for waist and hip

circumference measurement be checked before starting the survey and the length should be

rechecked against a standard measure at least once a month and replaced as appropriate. (3)

There are no data available about the checking of the tape during the surveys.


The description of the German Federal Health Survey 1998 makes a general statement about

daily checking and calibration of equipment used for anthropometric measurements, but it is

not clear whether this includes the tapes (7).

Other surveys

No information on the checking of measuring tape was available for Risk factor monitoring in

the Netherlands, UK National Health Surveys, and NHANES III.

6.2.6 Data quality control during the survey

WHO MONICA Project

In the WHO MONICA Project, there were no special instructions about quality control of

weight and height measurements during the surveys. Only few populations tested or re-

certified weight and height measurers during the surveys (4).


In the REGENBOOG project some visits were done to the examination sited during the

surveys (6).


For the German Federal Health Survey 1998 the leader of the local survey team reviewed the

daily data entry forms for plausibility and consistency. Records on the error rate of the

measurers were kept that were then used to determine need for re-training (7). In addition,

there were occasional surprise site visits to observe and evaluate the performance of the

survey personnel according to an agreed checklist (17). The checklist for height measurement

gives the flavour of these evaluations.

Checklist for Height Measurements

Was floor clean, covered?

Did subject remove shoes?

Was heavy clothing removed?

Were feet positioned in parallel?

Was subject standing straight?

Was subject breathing normally?

Correct head position?

Was head bracket properly lowered?

Was head bracket position maintained after subject stepped off the scale?

Was measurement made to closest 0.1 cm?

Were any special circumstances recorded?

Was height measurement > 2 m made properly

Quarterly, the data collected by each measurer were investigated for terminal digit preference,

stability of distribution parameters (mean, median, range, standard deviation), and preference

of terminal digit "0" for extreme values (17).

NHANES III

In NHANES III the online data entry was designed to function as a quality control measure by

minimizing possible measuring and recording errors. Tolerance levels or ranges had been set

for each measurement. If a measurement did not fall within these ranges, the system displayed

an "out of range" message and the examiner could recheck the measurement and enter the

"correct" value. It was possible that some persons’ values (i.e., very small or very large)

would not be within the "normal" ranges. Therefore, the examiner and recorder would verify

the original measurement value. Again, tolerance levels allowed for some inter-observer

differences, but discrepant measures which exceeded the levels had to be resolved. The

system also edited the data for placement of decimal points and number of digits. For

instance, if the number of positions entered for a measurement exceeded the number of

positions allowed for a measurement, a message was displayed and the cursor would not

advance until the problem was resolved. (9)

EPIC-Germany Study

Each measurer was observed at least four times per year during the 4-year study period.

Quality control criteria were location of measurement points, measurement procedure, and

handling of measurement device. Deviations from the required measurement procure were

discussed with the measurer and the monitoring was repeated until the measurements were

performed satisfactorily. (18)

Other surveys

No information was found about data quality control during the survey for UK National

Health Surveys.

6.2.7 Retrospective quality assessment reports

WHO MONICA Project

In the WHO MONICA Project, retrospective quality assessment reports were prepared (4,

16). They give detailed description of the instruments and procedures used, and the achieved

quality of weight and height measurements and waist and hip circumference measurements in

each population.

Other surveys

No information on retrospective quality assessment of anthropometric measurement was

located for Risk factor monitoring in the Netherlands, Risk factor monitoring in Germany,

UK National Health Surveys, and NHANES III.

6.3 Indicators used for reporting the results

WHO MONICA Project

In the WHO MONICA Project the results from weight and height measurements were

reported using population means of body mass index (BMI), weight and height (19). For

overweight, two cutoff points were used, BMI > 25 kg/m2 and BMI > 30 kg/m2 (20).

In the WHO MONICA Project the waist and hip circumference measurements are reported

using waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), and means of waist and hip circumference measurements

(21). For obesity, two cutpoints for the percentage of waist-hip ratio were used: WHR > 0.94

and WHR > 1.02 for men and WHR > 0.80 and WHR > 0.88 for the women (20). Also limits

WHR > 0.80 and WHR > 1.00 have been used (19).


In the Monitoring Project on Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors in the Netherlands

categorised BMI as: < 25 kg/m2, 25 - 29.9 kg/m2, > 30 kg/m2. (10)

German National Health Survey

In the German National Health Survey 1984-91 the following categories of BMI were used: <

25 kg/m2 and > 30 kg/m2. (22) In a report of the German Federal Health Survey 1998 (14),

cutoff points for BMI were < 20, 20 to < 25, 25 to < 30, and ³ 30 kg/m2. Cutoff points for

waist-hip ratio were for men > 1 and for women > 0.85. The German Federal Health Survey

1998 used the identical cut points for BMI and waist/hip ratio (14)


In the Health Survey for England the BMI and waist-to-hip ratio were used in reporting.

Obesity was defined as a BMI greater than 30 kg/m2 , and overweight as > 25 kg/m2 but £ 30

kg/m2. (8)

NHANES III

In NHANES III the following categories of BMI were used: overweight (BMI > 25.0 kg/m2),

pre-obese (BMI 25.0 - 29.9 kg/m2), class I obese (BMI 30.0 - 34.9 kg/m2), class II obese

(BMI 35.0 - 39.9 kg/m2) and class III obese (BMI > 40 kg/m2). (23) Waist circumference

was used when reporting obesity and cut-points, > 102 cm for men and > 88 cm for women

were used. (24)

6.4 Discussion and conclusion

In surveys where field examinations are made, weight and height should be measured. The

measurements are cheap and easy to perform and accurate if proper equipment, procedures

and quality assurance are used. Bias can result either from incorrect measurement procedure

or false calibration of the measurement devices.

The measurement of waist and hip circumferences is also recommended, although their

measurement is not as easy as the measurement of weight and height. The level at which the

measurement is to be made, as well as the pressure of the tape measure will need to be

carefully standardized. There were differences between surveys in the level at which

measurements were made.

At the moment, a balanced beam scale is still the most reliable device for weight

measurement. Digital scales, which are already employed by some studies, are easy to use and

to move from one examination site to another, but they are usually difficult or impossible to

calibrate.

All surveys considered in this report asked the subjects to remove their outdoor clothes and

shoes before height, weight, waist and hip circumference measurements. In some surveys, the

participants were allowed to wear trousers, in others, trousers were removed. Trousers can

easily weigh up to one kilogram, and are often made of thick material. Therefore, they can

introduce a noticeable bias in the population estimates of BMI and waist and hip

circumference.

There were differences between the surveys in the resolution at which the measurements were

recorded. Even a low resolution, such as measuring weight to the nearest kilogram, is not a

problem for population monitoring, provided that the rounding is done properly.

BMI was used as the indicator of overweight and obesity in all surveys. Different ways of

categorizing BMI were used in the reporting, but all surveys used 30 kg/m2 as the lower limit

for obesity.

References

Niedhammer I, Bugel I, Bonenfant S, Goldberg M, Leclerc A. Validity of self-reported

weight and height in the French GAZEL cohort. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord

2000;24(9):1111-8.

Kuczmarski MF, Kuczmarski RJ, Najjar M. Effects of age on validity of self-reported height,

weight, and body mass index: findings from the Third National Health and Nutrition

Examination Survey, 1988-1994. J Am Diet Assoc 2001;101(1):28-34; quiz 5-6.

WHO MONICA Project. MONICA Manual. Part III: Population Survey. Section 1:

Population survey data component. (1997). Available from:

URL:http://www.thl.fi/publications/monica/manual/part3/iii-1.htm, URN:NBN:fi-fe19981151

Molarius A, Kuulasmaa K, Sans S, for the WHO MONICA Project. Quality Assessment of

Weight and Height Measurements in the WHO MONICA Project. (1999). Available from:

URL:http://www.thl.fi/publicaitons/monica/bmi/bmiqa20.htm, URN:NBN:fi-fe19991079

Verschuren W. The protocol of the Monitoring Project on Cardiovascular Disease Risk

Factors and the MORGEN-project. Personal communicaton. 2001

Viet L. The protocol of the REGENBOOG project. Personal communication. 2001

Thierfelder W, Seher C, Thefeld W. Der Bundes-Gesundheitssurvey 1997/98-

Untersuchungsteil. Gesundheitswesen 1998;60 Suppl 2:S69-76.

The Stationary Office. Health Survey of England, Cardiovascular disease. Volume 1:

Findings; Volume 2: Methodology & Documentation. 1999. Available from:

URL:http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/doh/survey98/hse98.htm

Westat Inc. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III, Body Measurements

(Anthropometry). Rockville MD; 1988.

Verschuren W, van Leer E, Blokstra A, Seidell J, Smit H, Bueno de Mesquita H, de

Oberman-Boer G, Kromhout D. Cardiovascular disease risk factors in the Netherlands. Neth J

Cardiol 1993;6:205–10.

Bassey EJ. Demi-span as a measure of skeletal size. Ann Hum Biol 1986;13(5):499-502.

Erens B, Primatesta P, Prior G. Health Survey of England 1999. 2001. Available from:

URL:http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/doh/survey99/hse99.htm

REGENBOOG Project. Draaiboek voor de GGD-medewerker; December 1999.

Bergmann KE, Mensink GB. Körpermasse und Übergewicht. Gesundheitswesen 1999;61

Spec No:S115-20.

Carson CA, Meilahn EN, Caggiula AW. Comparison of waist measurements: a methodologic

issue in longitudinal studies. J Am Diet Assoc 1994;94(7):771-2.

Molarius A, Sans S, Kuulasmaa K, for the WHO MONICA Project. Quality Assessment of

Data on Waist and Hip Circumferences in the WHO MONICA Project. (1999). Available

from: URL:http://www.thl.fi/publications/monica/waisthip/waisthipqa.htm, URN:NBN:fi-

fe19991091

Winkler G, Filipiak B, Hense HW, Schwertner B. Externe Qualitätskontrolle im Bundes-

Gesundheitssurvey: Konzept und Site-Visit. Gesundheitswesen 1999;61 Spec No:S68-71.

Kroke A, Bergmann MM, Lotze G, Jeckel A, Klipstein-Grobusch K, Boeing H. Measures of

quality control in the German component of the EPIC study. European Prospective

Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Ann Nutr Metab 1999;43(4):216-24.

Tolonen H, Kuulasmaa K, Ruokokoski E, for the WHO MONICA Project. MONICA

Population Survey Data Book. (2000). Available from:

URL:http://www.thl.fi/publications/monica/surveydb/title.htm, URN:NBN:fi-fe20001206

Molarius A, Seidell JC, Sans S, Tuomilehto J, Kuulasmaa K, for the WHO MONICA Project.

Varying sensitivity of waist action levels to identify subjects with overweight or obesity in 19

populations of the WHO MONICA Project. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52(12):1213-24.

Molarius A, Seidell JC, Sans S, Tuomilehto J, Kuulasmaa K. Waist and hip circumferences,

and waist-hip ratio in 19 populations of the WHO MONICA Project. Int J Obes Relat Metab

Disord 1999;23(2):116-25.

Hoffmeister H, Mensink GB, Stolzenberg H, Hoeltz J, Kreuter H, Laaser U, Nussel E,

Hullemann KD, Troschke JV. Reduction of coronary heart disease risk factors in the German

cardiovascular prevention study. Prev Med 1996;25(2):135-45.

Flegal KM, Carroll MD, Kuczmarski RJ, Johnson CL. Overweight and obesity in the United

States: prevalence and trends, 1960-1994. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1998;22(1):39-47.

Okosun IS, Liao Y, Rotimi CN, Choi S, Cooper RS. Predictive values of waist circumference

for dyslipidemia, type 2 diabetes and hypertension in overweight White, Black, and Hispanic

American adults. J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53(4):401-8.

From : http://www.thl.fi/publications/ehrm/product1/section6.htm

http://www.thl.fi/publications/ehrm/product1/section6.htm

anthropometry measurement

Documents