<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id>0871-3413</journal-id>
<journal-title><![CDATA[Arquivos de Medicina]]></journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title><![CDATA[Arq Med]]></abbrev-journal-title>
<issn>0871-3413</issn>
<publisher>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[ArquiMed - Edições Científicas AEFMUP ]]></publisher-name>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id>S0871-34132007000400003</article-id>
<title-group>
<article-title xml:lang="pt"><![CDATA[Comparação dos Lipocalibradores Baseline® e Harpenden® para a Medição de Pregas Cutâneas]]></article-title>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Comparison of Baseline® and Harpenden® Callipers in Skinfold Thicknesses Measurement]]></article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Pinto]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Elisabete]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="A01"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Lopes]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Carla]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="A01"/>
</contrib>
</contrib-group>
<aff id="A01">
<institution><![CDATA[,Universidade do Porto Faculdade de Medicina Serviço de Higiene e Epidemiologia]]></institution>
<addr-line><![CDATA[Porto ]]></addr-line>
</aff>
<pub-date pub-type="pub">
<day>00</day>
<month>00</month>
<year>2007</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date pub-type="epub">
<day>00</day>
<month>00</month>
<year>2007</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>21</volume>
<numero>5-6</numero>
<fpage>145</fpage>
<lpage>150</lpage>
<copyright-statement/>
<copyright-year/>
<self-uri xlink:href="http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&amp;pid=S0871-34132007000400003&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso"></self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&amp;pid=S0871-34132007000400003&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso"></self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_pdf&amp;pid=S0871-34132007000400003&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso"></self-uri><abstract abstract-type="short" xml:lang="pt"><p><![CDATA[Introdução: Idealmente todos os instrumentos de avaliação da composição corporal deveriam ser testados por comparação com um método de referência. Como esta comparação nem sempre é exequível, opta-se frequentemente pela avaliação da concordância do instrumento com um outro de validade previamente testada. O objectivo deste estudo foi comparar as medidas obtidas com um lipocalibrador da marca Baseline® com as respectivas medidas obtidas com um lipocalibrador da marca Harpenden®. Métodos: Foram avaliados 68 indivíduos, de ambos os sexos, com uma idade mediana de 27 anos. Das 58 mulheres, 35 (60,3%) encontravam-se grávidas. Os instrumentos utilizados foram um lipocalibrador da marca Baseline® (modelo Skinfold Caliper - Aluminum) e um lipocalibrador da marca Harpenden®. Foram medidas a pregas cutâneas tricipital (PCT) e subescapular (PCSE). Para comparação das medições obtidas pelos dois instrumentos utilizou-se o teste de Wilcoxon e para quantificar a sua associação foram determinados os coeficientes de correlação de Spearman. A concordância entre instrumentos foi avaliada através do método proposto por Bland & Altman. Resultados: As medições obtidas pelos dois lipocalibradores foram significativamente diferentes para a PCT (mediana: 21,0 mm vs. 26,0 mm; p<0,001) e para a PCSE (mediana: 17,7 mm vs. 21,5 mm; p <0,001), sendo superiores quando medidas com o lipocalibrador Baseline®. A mediana da diferença entre as duas medições da PCT foi de 4,6 mm (intervalo interquartis: 1,8 - 6,4) e da PCSE foi de 3,1 mm (intervalo interquartis: 1,7 - 5,4). A diferença entre aparelhos não foi influenciada pelo valor absoluto das pregas cutâneas nem pelo índice de massa corporal do sujeito. A correlação entre as medições dos dois aparelhos foi de 0,90 para a PCT e de 0,95 para a PCSE. Utilizando o método de Bland & Altman observou-se que os limites de concordância eram muito largos, comparativamente com o valor mediano das pregas. Conclusão: Conclui-se que estes instrumentos não podem ser utilizados indiscriminadamente, uma vez que mantendo as condições de medição, os aparelhos fornecem medidas diferentes. As diferenças observadas entre instrumentos são susceptíveis de originarem grandes discrepâncias na estimativa da gordura corporal relativa.]]></p></abstract>
<abstract abstract-type="short" xml:lang="en"><p><![CDATA[Introduction: Ideally, all instruments for body composition assessment would be tested by comparison with a gold standard which is not always possible. In order to overcome this limitation the agreement with another instrument for which validity has been tested previously is frequently used. The aim of this study was to compare the measures obtained with a Baseline® calliper with the respective measures assessed with a Harpenden® calliper. Methods: We evaluated 68 participants, of both genders, with median age 27 years. Of the 58 women, 35 (60.3%) were pregnant. The instruments used were a Baseline® Skinfold Calliper - Aluminum and a Harpenden® calliper. Tricipital (TST) and subscapular (SST) skinfold thickness were measured. Measures with two instruments were compared by Wilcoxon test and their association was quantified by Spearman correlation coefficients. Bland & Altman diagrams were used to assess agreement between instruments. Results: The measurements obtained by the two callipers were significantly different for TST (median: 21.0 mm vs. 26.0 mm; p<0.001) and for SST (median: 17.7 mm vs. 21.5 mm; p<0.001), being higher when measured with Baseline® calliper. The median difference between the two measurements was 4.6 mm (interquartile range: 1.8 - 6.4) for TST and 3.1 mm (interquartile range: 1.7 - 5.4) for SST. The difference between instruments was not influenced by skinfold thickness value neither by body mass index. According to Bland & Altman method, very large agreement limits were observed comparatively with the median value for skinfold thickness. The correlation between measurements with two instruments was 0.90 for TST and 0.95 for SST. Conclusion: We concluded that these two instruments can not be used interchangeably once, even maintaining measurement conditions, the two instruments conducted to different results. The differences between instruments are susceptible to originate big discrepancies in body fat estimation.]]></p></abstract>
<kwd-group>
<kwd lng="pt"><![CDATA[pregas cutânas]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="pt"><![CDATA[lipocalibradores]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="pt"><![CDATA[composição corporal]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[skinfold thicknesses]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[skinfold calliper]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[body composition]]></kwd>
</kwd-group>
</article-meta>
</front><body><![CDATA[ <p><b>Compara&ccedil;&atilde;o dos Lipocalibradores Baseline&reg; e Harpenden&reg;    para a Medi&ccedil;&atilde;o de Pregas Cut&acirc;neas</b></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p>Elisabete Pinto, Carla Lopes </p>     <p><i>Servi&ccedil;o de Higiene e Epidemiologia, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade    do Porto </i></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><b>Introdu&ccedil;&atilde;o</b>: Idealmente todos os instrumentos de avalia&ccedil;&atilde;o    da composi&ccedil;&atilde;o corporal deveriam ser testados por compara&ccedil;&atilde;o    com um m&eacute;todo de refer&ecirc;ncia. Como esta compara&ccedil;&atilde;o    nem sempre &eacute; exequ&iacute;vel, opta-se frequentemente pela avalia&ccedil;&atilde;o    da concord&acirc;ncia do instrumento com um outro de validade previamente testada.    O objectivo deste estudo foi comparar as medidas obtidas com um lipocalibrador    da marca Baseline&reg; com as respectivas medidas obtidas com um lipocalibrador    da marca Harpenden&reg;. </p>     <p><b>M&eacute;todos</b>: Foram avaliados 68 indiv&iacute;duos, de ambos os sexos,    com uma idade mediana de 27 anos. Das 58 mulheres, 35 (60,3%) encontravam-se    gr&aacute;vidas. Os instrumentos utilizados foram um lipocalibrador da marca    Baseline&reg; (modelo Skinfold Caliper - Aluminum) e um lipocalibrador da marca    Harpenden&reg;. Foram medidas a pregas cut&acirc;neas tricipital (PCT) e subescapular    (PCSE). Para compara&ccedil;&atilde;o das medi&ccedil;&otilde;es obtidas pelos    dois instrumentos utilizou-se o teste de Wilcoxon e para quantificar a sua associa&ccedil;&atilde;o    foram determinados os coeficientes de correla&ccedil;&atilde;o de Spearman.    A concord&acirc;ncia entre instrumentos foi avaliada atrav&eacute;s do m&eacute;todo    proposto por Bland &amp; Altman.</p>     <p> <b>Resultados</b>: As medi&ccedil;&otilde;es obtidas pelos dois lipocalibradores    foram significativamente diferentes para a PCT (mediana: 21,0 mm vs. 26,0 mm;    p&lt;0,001) e para a PCSE (mediana: 17,7 mm vs. 21,5 mm; p &lt;0,001), sendo    superiores quando medidas com o lipocalibrador Baseline&reg;. A mediana da diferen&ccedil;a    entre as duas medi&ccedil;&otilde;es da PCT foi de 4,6 mm (intervalo interquartis:    1,8 - 6,4) e da PCSE foi de 3,1 mm (intervalo interquartis: 1,7 - 5,4). A diferen&ccedil;a    entre aparelhos n&atilde;o foi influenciada pelo valor absoluto das pregas cut&acirc;neas    nem pelo &iacute;ndice de massa corporal do sujeito. A correla&ccedil;&atilde;o    entre as medi&ccedil;&otilde;es dos dois aparelhos foi de 0,90 para a PCT e    de 0,95 para a PCSE. Utilizando o m&eacute;todo de Bland &amp; Altman observou-se    que os limites de concord&acirc;ncia eram muito largos, comparativamente com    o valor mediano das pregas.</p>     <p> <b>Conclus&atilde;o</b>: Conclui-se que estes instrumentos n&atilde;o podem    ser utilizados indiscriminadamente, uma vez que mantendo as condi&ccedil;&otilde;es    de medi&ccedil;&atilde;o, os aparelhos fornecem medidas diferentes. As diferen&ccedil;as    observadas entre instrumentos s&atilde;o suscept&iacute;veis de originarem grandes    discrep&acirc;ncias na estimativa da gordura corporal relativa. </p>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<p><b>Palavras-chave</b>: pregas cut&acirc;nas; lipocalibradores; composi&ccedil;&atilde;o    corporal.</p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><b>Comparison of Baseline&reg; and Harpenden&reg; Callipers in Skinfold Thicknesses    Measurement </b></p>     <p><b>Introduction</b>: Ideally, all instruments for body composition assessment    would be tested by comparison with a gold standard which is not always possible.    In order to overcome this limitation the agreement with another instrument for    which validity has been tested previously is frequently used. The aim of this    study was to compare the measures obtained with a Baseline&reg; calliper with    the respective measures assessed with a Harpenden&reg; calliper. </p>     <p><b>Methods</b>: We evaluated 68 participants, of both genders, with median    age 27 years. Of the 58 women, 35 (60.3%) were pregnant. The instruments used    were a Baseline&reg; Skinfold Calliper - Aluminum and a Harpenden&reg; calliper.    Tricipital (TST) and subscapular (SST) skinfold thickness were measured. Measures    with two instruments were compared by Wilcoxon test and their association was    quantified by Spearman correlation coefficients. Bland &amp; Altman diagrams    were used to assess agreement between instruments. </p>     <p><b>Results</b>: The measurements obtained by the two callipers were significantly    different for TST (median: 21.0 mm vs. 26.0 mm; p&lt;0.001) and for SST (median:    17.7 mm vs. 21.5 mm; p&lt;0.001), being higher when measured with Baseline&reg;    calliper. The median difference between the two measurements was 4.6 mm (interquartile    range: 1.8 - 6.4) for TST and 3.1 mm (interquartile range: 1.7 - 5.4) for SST.    The difference between instruments was not influenced by skinfold thickness    value neither by body mass index. According to Bland &amp; Altman method, very    large agreement limits were observed comparatively with the median value for    skinfold thickness. The correlation between measurements with two instruments    was 0.90 for TST and 0.95 for SST. </p>     <p><b>Conclusion</b>: We concluded that these two instruments can not be used    interchangeably once, even maintaining measurement conditions, the two instruments    conducted to different results. The differences between instruments are susceptible    to originate big discrepancies in body fat estimation. </p>     <p><b>Key-words</b>: skinfold thicknesses; skinfold calliper; body composition.</p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<p>&nbsp;</p>     <p>Texto completo dispon&iacute;vel apenas em PDF.</p>     <p>Full text only available in PDF format.</p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><b>REFER&Ecirc;NCIAS </b></p>     <!-- ref --><p>1 - Gibson R. Anthropometric assessment of body composition. In: Gibson R.    Principles of nutritional assessment. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005.    p 273-98. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=000029&pid=S0871-3413200700040000300001&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><p>2 - Martin A, Ross W, Drinkwater D, Clarys J. Prediction of body fat by skinfold    caliper: assumptions and cadaver evidence. Int J Obes 1985;9(suppl 1):31-9.  </p>     <p>3 - Heyward V, Stolarczyk L. Body composition Basics. In: Applied body composition    assessment. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics 1996. </p>     <p>4 - Ginies J, Goulet O. Composition Corporelle: &Eacute;tude Des Compartiments.    In: Ricour C, Ghisolfi J, Putet G, Goulet O, editors. Trait&eacute; de Nutrition    P&eacute;diatrique. Maloine 1993.</p>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<p>5 - Rao D, Vijayaraghavan K, Sastry J. A comparison of skinfold measurements    by Harpenden and Best calipers. Ann Hum Biol 1974;1:443-6. </p>     <p>6 - Cyrino E, Okano A, Glaner M, Roanzini M, Gobbo A, Makoski A. Impact of    the use of different calipers for the analysis of the body composition. Rev    Bras Med Esporte 2003;9:150-3. </p>     <p>7 - Edwards D, Hammond W, Healy M, Tanner J, Whitehouse R. Design and accuracy    of calipers for measuring subcutaneous tissue thickness. Br J Nutr 1955;9:133-43.  </p>     <p>8 - Bland J, Altman D. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between    two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307-10.</p>     <p>9 - Mueller W, Martorell R. Reliability and accuracy of measurement. In: Loman    T, Roche A, Martorell R. Anthropometric Standardization Reference. Champaign,    IL: Human Kinetics Books 1988; pp. 83-86. </p>     <p>10 - Gruber J, Pollock M, Graves J, Colvin A, Braith R. Comparison of Harpenden    and Lange calipers in predicting body composition. Res Q Exerc Sport 1990;61:184-90.  </p>     <p>11 - Larciprete G, Valensise H, Vasapollo B, et al. Body composition during    normal pregnancy: reference ranges. Acta Diabetol 2003;40 (suppl 1):S225-32.  </p>     <p>12 - Perini T, Oliveira G, Ornellas J, Oliveira F. C&aacute;lculo do erro t&eacute;cnico    de medi&ccedil;&atilde;o em antropometria. Rev Bras Med Esporte 2005;11:81-5.  </p>     <p>13 - Pederson D, Gore C. Error en la medici&oacute;n antropom&eacute;trica.    In: Norton K, Olds T, editors. Antropom&eacute;trica. Argentina: Biosystem Servicio    Educativo 2000;71-86. </p>     <p>14 - Jung E, Kaufman J, Narins D, Kaufman G. Skinfold measurements in children.    A comparison of Lange and McGaw calipers. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 1984;23:25-8.</p>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<p>15 - Chumlea W. Accuracy and reliability of a new sliding caliper. Am J Phys    Anthropol 1985;68:425-7.</p>     <p>16 - Burgert S, Anderson C. A comparison of triceps skinfold values as measured    by the plastic McGaw caliper and the Lange caliper. Am J Clin Nutr.1979;32:1531-3.</p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><b>Correspond&ecirc;ncia</b>: </p>     <p>Dr.&ordf; Elisabete Pinto </p>     <p>Servi&ccedil;o de Higiene e Epidemiologia Faculdade de Medicina Universidade    do Porto </p>     <p>Alameda Prof. Hern&acirc;ni Monteiro </p>     <p>4200-319 Porto </p>     <p>e-mail: <a href="mailto:ecbpinto@med.up.pt">ecbpinto@med.up.pt</a> </p>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[ ]]></body><back>
<ref-list>
<ref id="B1">
<nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Gibson]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Anthropometric assessment of body composition]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="editor">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Gibson]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Principles of nutritional assessment.]]></source>
<year>2005</year>
<page-range>273-98</page-range><publisher-loc><![CDATA[New York ]]></publisher-loc>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Oxford University Press]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
</ref-list>
</back>
</article>
