Developing a tool for obtaining maternal skinfold thickness measurements and assessing inter-observer variability among pregnant women who are overweight and obese

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

Jodie M Dodd¹  Lisa Yelland¹  Rosalie M Grivell¹  Andrea R Deussen¹  Lavern M Kannieappan¹ 

[1] The University of Adelaide, Robinson Institute, Discipline of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Women’s and Children’s Hospital, 72 King William Road, 5006, North Adelaide, South Australia

关键词: Pregnancy;    Inter-observer variability;    Body composition;    Anthropometric measurements;    Obese;    Overweight;   

Others  :  1138227
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2393-13-42

 received in 2012-08-02, accepted in 2013-02-14,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

It is estimated that between 34% and 50% of Australian women entering pregnancy are overweight and obese, which is associated with an increased risk in complications for both the woman and her infant. Current tools used in clinical and research practice for measuring body composition include body mass index (BMI), waist circumference and bioimpedance analysis. Not all of these measures are applicable for use during pregnancy due to a lack of differentiation between maternal and fetal contributions. While skinfold thickness measurement (SFTM) is increasingly being used in pregnancy, there is limited data and a lack of a standard tool for its use in overweight and obese pregnant women.

Methods

We developed a standard tool for evaluating SFTM among women with a BMI ≥ 25 kg/m². Forty-nine women were measured as part of a prospective cohort study nested within a multicentre randomised controlled trial (The LIMIT Randomised Controlled Trial). Two blinded observers each performed 2 skinfold measurements on the biceps, triceps and subscapular of each woman. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and standard error of measurement (SEM) were used to analyse SFTM, body fat percentage (BF%) and inter-observer variability.

Results

The ICC for inter-observer variability in measurements were considered moderate for biceps SFTM (ICC = 0.56) and triceps SFTM (ICC = 0.51); good for subscapular SFTM (ICC = 0.71) and BF% (ICC = 0.74); and excellent for arm circumference (ICC = 0.97). The standard error of measurements ranged from 0.53 cm for arm circumference to 3.58 mm for the subscapular SFTM.

Conclusion

Our findings indicate that arm circumference and biceps, triceps and subscapular SFTM can be reliably obtained from overweight and obese pregnant women to calculate BF%, using multiple observers, and can be used in a research setting.

Trial registration

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12607000161426

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Kannieappan et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Callaway LK, Prins JB, Chang AM, McIntyre HD: The prevalence and impact of overweight and obesity in an Australian obstetric population. Med J Aust 2006, 184(2):56-59.
• [2]Dodd JM, Grivell RM, Nguyen AM, Chan A, Robinson JS: Maternal and perinatal health outcomes by body mass index category. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2011, 51(2):136-140.
• [3]Chan ASJ, Nguyenn AM, Sage L: Pregnancy outcome in South Australia 2007. Adelaide: Government of South Australia; 2008.
• [4]Athukorala C, Rumbold AR, Willson KJ, Crowther CA: The risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in women who are overweight or obese. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2010, 10:56. BioMed Central Full Text
• [5]WHO: Part 1 the problem of overweight and obesity. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 1995.
• [6]Fattah C, Farah N, Barry S, O’Connor N, Stuart B, Turner MJ: The measurement of maternal adiposity. J Obstet Gynaecol 2009, 29(8):686-689.
• [7]Marfell-Jones M, Olds T, Stewart A, Carter JEL: International Standards for Anthropometric Assessment. Potchefstroom, RSA: North-West University; 2006.
• [8]Larciprete G, Valensise H, Vasapollo B, Altomare F, Sorge R, Casalino B, De Lorenzo A, Arduini D: Body composition during normal pregnancy: reference ranges. Acta Diabetol 2003, 40(Suppl 1):S225-S232.
• [9]Fattah C, Farah N, Barry SC, O’Connor N, Stuart B, Turner MJ: Maternal weight and body composition in the first trimester of pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2010, 89(7):952-955.
• [10]Dodd JM, Turnbull DA, McPhee AJ, Wittert G, Crowther CA, Robinson JS: Limiting weight gain in overweight and obese women during pregnancy to improve health outcomes: the LIMIT randomised controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2011, 11:79. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]Portney LG WM: Foundations of clinical practice: applications to practice. Third edn edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc; 2000.
• [12]Nordhamn K, Sodergren E, Olsson E, Karlstrom B, Vessby B, Berglund L: Reliability of anthropometric measurements in overweight and lean subjects: consequences for correlations between anthropometric and other variables. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2000, 24(5):652-657.
• [13]Klipstein-Grobusch K, Georg T, Boeing H: Interviewer variability in anthropometric measurements and estimates of body composition. Int J Epidemiol 1997, 26(Suppl 1):S174-S180.
• [14]Huston Presley L, Wong WW, Roman NM, Amini SB, Catalano PM: Anthropometric estimation of maternal body composition in late gestation. Obstet Gynecol 2000, 96(1):33-37.
• [15]Lopez LB CE, Poy MS, Balmaceda YD, Camera K: Changes in skinfolds and mid-upper arm circumference during pregnancy in Argentine women. Maternal Child Nutr 2011, 7(3):253-262.
• [16]Soltani H, Fraser RB: A longitudinal study of maternal anthropometric changes in normal weight, overweight and obese women during pregnancy and postpartum. Br J Nutr 2000, 84(1):95-101.
• [17]Taggart NR, Holliday RM, Billewicz WZ, Hytten FE, Thomson AM: Changes in skinfolds during pregnancy. Br J Nutr 1967, 21(2):439-451.