Measurement of subcutaneous fat tissue: reliability and comparison of caliper and ultrasound via systematic body mapping

Abstract

AbstractCaliper and ultrasound (US) are used to measure subcutaneous fat tissue depth (SFT) and then to calculate total body fat. There is no evidence-based recommendation as to whether caliper or US are equally accurate. The aim of this paper was therefore to compare reliability of both methods. In this methodical study, 54 participants (BMI: 24.8 ± 3.5 kg/m2; Age: 43.2 ± 21.7 years) were included. Using systematic body mapping, the SFT of 56 areas was measured. We also analyzed 4 body sites via MRI. A comparison between caliper and US detected clear differences in mean SFT of all areas (0.83 ± 0.33 cm vs. 1.14 ± 0.54 cm; p < 0.001) showing moderate reliability (ICC 0.669, 95%CI: 0.625–0.712). US and MRI revealed in the abdominal area a SFT twice as thick as caliper (2.43 ± 1.36 cm vs. 2.26 ± 1.32 cm vs. 1.15 ± 0.66 cm; respectively). Caliper and US revealed excellent intrarater (ICC caliper: 0.944, 95%CI: 0.926–0.963; US: 0.934, 95%CI: 0.924–0.944) and good interrater reliability (ICC caliper: 0.794, 95%CI: 0.754–0.835; US: 0.825, 95%CI: 0.794–0.857). Despite the high reliability in measuring SFT that caliper and US show, our comparison of the two methods yielded clear differences in SFT, particularly in the abdominal area. In accuracy terms, US is preferable for most mapping areas.