ArticleJournal of physiological anthropology2026
Examination of postural dependence in subcutaneous fat thickness measurement using a caliper.
Article in Journal of physiological anthropology, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStanding is commonly used as the standard position for skinfold-based subcutaneous fat thickness measurement; however, the feasibility and reliability of alternative positions remain unclear.
methodsTen healthy men participated. Subcutaneous fat thickness was measured at the lumbar and medial calf regions using a metal caliper. Measurements were obtained in standing, sitting, prone, side-lying, and supine positions, except for the lumbar region. Each posture was measured three times in one session by the same examiner, and participant-level means were used for analysis. Intra-rater reliability was assessed using ICC(1, 1) and ICC(1, 3).
resultsParticipant-level means ranged from 3.7 to 4.0 mm in the lumbar region and from 4.2 to 4.4 mm in the lower leg. ICCs exceeded 0.90 in both regions. A main effect of posture was observed in the lumbar region, whereas the Greenhouse-Geisser-corrected main effect was not significant in the lower leg. Post hoc differences were found only between standing and side-lying and between standing and prone positions in the lumbar region, with Cohen's d values of 0.19 and 0.16, respectively.
conclusionsSubcutaneous fat thickness measurements obtained using a metal caliper showed very high intra-rater reliability across postures. Although small posture-related differences were observed, particularly in the lumbar region, the magnitude of these differences appeared to be of limited practical relevance in healthy young men. Alternative measurement postures may be considered when standing measurement is difficult, although further validation in other populations is required.
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.