Measurement of Waist and Hip Circumference with a Body Surface Scanner: Feasibility, Validity, Reliability, and Correlations with Markers of the Metabolic Syndrome

OBJECTIVE Body surface scanners (BS), which visualize a 3D image of the human body, facilitate the computation of numerous body measures, including height, waist circumference (WC) and hip circumference (HC). However, limited information is available regarding validity and reliability of these automated measurements (AM) and their correlation with parameters of the Metabolic Syndrome (MetS) compared to traditional manual measurements (MM). METHODS As part of a cross-sectional feasibility study, AM of WC, HC and height were assessed twice in 60 participants using a 3D BS (VitussmartXXL). Additionally, MM were taken by trained personnel according to WHO guidelines. Participants underwent an interview, bioelectrical impedance analysis, and blood pressure measurement. Blood samples were taken to determine HbA1c, HDL-cholesterol, triglycerides, and uric acid. Validity was assessed based on the agreement between AM and MM, using Bland-Altman-plots, correlation analysis, and paired t-tests. Reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) based on two repeated AM. Further, we calculated age-adjusted Pearson correlation for AM and MM with fat mass, systolic blood pressure, HbA1c, HDL-cholesterol, triglycerides, and uric acid. RESULTS Body measures were higher in AM compared to MM but both measurements were strongly correlated (WC, men, difference = 1.5 cm, r = 0.97; women, d = 4.7 cm, r = 0.96; HC, men, d = 2.3 cm, r = 0.97; women, d = 3.0 cm; r = 0.98). Reliability was high for all AM (nearly all ICC>0.98). Correlations of WC, HC, and the waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) with parameters of MetS were similar between AM and MM; for example the correlation of WC assessed by AM with HDL-cholesterol was r = 0.35 in men, and r = -0.48 in women, respectively whereas correlation of WC measured manually with HDL cholesterol was r = -0.41 in men, and r = -0.49 in women, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Although AM of WC, HC, and WHR are higher when compared to MM based on WHO guidelines, our data indicate good validity, excellent reliability, and similar correlations to parameters of the MetS.