ArticleCurrent medical imaging2025
Consistency of Ultrasound Measurements of Fat Thickness in Different Postures.
Article in Current medical imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUltrasound has been used in the field of clinical nutrition to measure body composition. However, the consistency of these measurements varies across studies, and the impact of examination posture remains largely unexplored, creating a critical methodological gap in clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to investigate the consistency of ultrasonic measurement of fat thickness (FT) and evaluate the impact of posture on these measurements.
methodsFT was measured at 10 body sites in routine and special postures using ultrasound to determine intra-observer and inter-observer consistency and to assess the impact of different postures on FT measurements. Body fat mass (BFM) was measured by bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), and subcutaneous skinfold thickness was measured with calipers for correlation analysis.
resultsResults revealed significant sex differences in BFM (P<0.05) and FT at most sites (P<0.001), with women exhibiting thicker fat measurements. High intra-observer and inter-observer consistency was demonstrated in special examination postures (intraclass correlation coefficients were both ≥0.925). Posterior upper arm FT measured in the sitting posture was greater than that measured in the prone posture (P<0.001) while there was no significant difference in subscapular FT between the two postures (P = 0.289). There were significant differences in posterior lower leg FT among the four postures (P<0.001). Positive correlations were observed between FT and skinfold at site 5 (abdominal subcutaneous fat), site 7 (posterior upper arm), and site 8 (subscapular) (r = 0.921, 0.878, 0.882, P<0.01). DISCUSSION: Ultrasound measurements of FT have proven reliable, offering advantages in cost, ease, accuracy, and scalability. The findings highlight the importance of posture in ultrasound measurement of FT, which may influence clinical practice and research protocols. The limitations of the study mainly lie in the narrow age and BMI ranges of the sample, which restrict the generalizability of the research findings.
conclusionThis study provides a comprehensive evidence base for posture-specific ultrasound protocols in fat thickness measurement. Our results demonstrate that ultrasound is a reliable method for measuring fat thickness, exhibiting good to excellent inter-observer and intra-observer consistency. The impact of body posture on fat thickness measurements varies by anatomical location. Strong correlations were found between ultrasound measurements and skinfold thickness at subcutaneous sites, confirming the validity of ultrasound for fat thickness assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.