Article

Abdominal fat assessment in adolescents using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry.

Exercise, Health & Performance Faculty Research Group, Faculty of Health Science, The University of Sydney, Australia.
Journal of pediatric endocrinology & metabolism: JPEM (Impact Factor: 0.71). 09/2009; 22(9):781-94. DOI: 10.1515/JPEM.2009.22.9.781
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Abdominal obesity is an increasing problem in adolescents, often persisting into adulthood. Reliable assessment has been restricted to techniques limited by relatively high radiation doses or cost.
To investigate the reliability of several abdominal regions using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and to assess the construct validity of these methods against metabolic profile.
Inter- and intra-rater precision of two assessors were examined, for fat mass analysis in six different abdominal regions using DXA in overweight/obese and normal weight adolescents. Construct validity was examined in overweight/obese individuals.
All methods had acceptable intra- and inter-rater reliability. Region 1 was most precise in overweight/obese individuals, while Region 6 was most precise in normal weight individuals. In all regions, assessments were less precise in overweight/obese individuals. All regions were equally predictive of insulin outcomes.
Abdominal adiposity can be reliably assessed in adolescents using DXA, and the most precisely assessed regions were identified. All regions predicted insulin outcomes.

1 Bookmark
 · 
165 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Lack of uniformity in outcome measures used in evaluations of childhood obesity treatment interventions can impede the ability to assess effectiveness and limits comparisons across trials. Lack of uniformity in outcome measures used in evaluations of childhood obesity treatment interventions can impede the ability to assess effectiveness and limits comparisons across trials. Objective: To identify and appraise outcome measures to produce a framework of recommended measures for use in evaluations of childhood obesity treatment interventions. To identify and appraise outcome measures to produce a framework of recommended measures for use in evaluations of childhood obesity treatment interventions. Data sources: Eleven electronic databases were searched between August and December 2011, including MEDLINE; MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations; EMBASE; PsycINFO; Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC); Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED); Global Health, Maternity and Infant Care (all Ovid); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (EBSCOhost); Science Citation Index (SCI) [Web of Science (WoS)]; and The Cochrane Library (Wiley) - from the date of inception, with no language restrictions. This was supported by review of relevant grey literature and trial databases. Eleven electronic databases were searched between August and December 2011, including MEDLINE; MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations; EMBASE; PsycINFO; Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC); Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED); Global Health, Maternity and Infant Care (all Ovid); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (EBSCOhost); Science Citation Index (SCI) [Web of Science (WoS)]; and The Cochrane Library (Wiley) - from the date of inception, with no language restrictions. This was supported by review of relevant grey literature and trial databases. Review methods: Two searches were conducted to identify (1) outcome measures and corresponding citations used in published childhood obesity treatment evaluations and (2) manuscripts describing the development and/or evaluation of the outcome measures used in the childhood intervention obesity evaluations. Search 1 search strategy (review of trials) was modelled on elements of a review by Luttikhuis et al. (Oude Luttikhuis H, Baur L, Jansen H, Shrewsbury VA, O'Malley C, Stolk RP, et al. Interventions for treating obesity in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;1:CD001872). Search 2 strategy (methodology papers) was built on Terwee et al.'s search filter (Terwee CB, Jansma EP, Riphagen II, de Vet HCW. Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Qual Life Res 2009;18:1115-23). Eligible papers were appraised for quality initially by the internal project team. This was followed by an external appraisal by expert collaborators in order to agree which outcome measures should be recommended for the Childhood obesity Outcomes Review (CoOR) outcome measures framework. Two searches were conducted to identify (1) outcome measures and corresponding citations used in published childhood obesity treatment evaluations and (2) manuscripts describing the development and/or evaluation of the outcome measures used in the childhood intervention obesity evaluations. Search 1 search strategy (review of trials) was modelled on elements of a review by Luttikhuis et al. (Oude Luttikhuis H, Baur L, Jansen H, Shrewsbury VA, O'Malley C, Stolk RP, et al. Interventions for treating obesity in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;1:CD001872). Search 2 strategy (methodology papers) was built on Terwee et al.'s search filter (Terwee CB, Jansma EP, Riphagen II, de Vet HCW. Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Qual Life Res 2009;18:1115-23). Eligible papers were appraised for quality initially by the internal project team. This was f llowed by an external appraisal by expert collaborators in order to agree which outcome measures should be recommended for the Childhood obesity Outcomes Review (CoOR) outcome measures framework. Results: Three hundred and seventy-nine manuscripts describing 180 outcome measures met eligibility criteria. Appraisal of these resulted in the recommendation of 36 measures for the CoOR outcome measures framework. Recommended primary outcome measures were body mass index (BMI) and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Experts did not advocate any self-reported measures where objective measurement was possible (e.g. physical activity). Physiological outcomes hold potential to be primary outcomes, as they are indicators of cardiovascular health, but without evidence of what constitutes a minimally importance difference they have remained as secondary outcomes (although the corresponding lack of evidence for BMI and DXA is acknowledged). No preference-based quality-of-life measures were identified that would enable economic evaluation via calculation of quality-adjusted life-years. Few measures reported evaluating responsiveness. Three hundred and seventy-nine manuscripts describing 180 outcome measures met eligibility criteria. Appraisal of these resulted in the recommendation of 36 measures for the CoOR outcome measures framework. Recommended primary outcome measures were body mass index (BMI) and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Experts did not advocate any self-reported measures where objective measurement was possible (e.g. physical activity). Physiological outcomes hold potential to be primary outcomes, as they are indicators of cardiovascular health, but without evidence of what constitutes a minimally importance difference they have remained as secondary outcomes (although the corresponding lack of evidence for BMI and DXA is acknowledged). No preference-based quality-of-life measures were identified that would enable economic evaluation via calculation of quality-adjusted life-years. Few measures reported evaluating responsiveness. Limitations: Proposed recommended measures are fit for use as outcome measures within studies that evaluate childhood obesity treatment evaluations specifically. These may or may not be suitable for other study designs, and some excluded measures may be more suitable in other study designs. Proposed recommended measures are fit for use as outcome measures within studies that evaluate childhood obesity treatment evaluations specifically. These may or may not be suitable for other study designs, and some excluded measures may be more suitable in other study designs. Conclusions: The CoOR outcome measures framework provides clear guidance of recommended primary and secondary outcome measures. This will enhance comparability between treatment evaluations and ensure that appropriate measures are being used. Where possible, future work should focus on modification and evaluation of existing measures rather than development of tools de nova. In addition, it is recommended that a similar outcome measures framework is produced to support evaluation of adult obesity programmes. The CoOR outcome measures framework provides clear guidance of recommended primary and secondary outcome measures. This will enhance comparability between treatment evaluations and ensure that appropriate measures are being used. Where possible, future work should focus on modification and evaluation of existing measures rather than development of tools de nova. In addition, it is recommended that a similar outcome measures framework is produced to support evaluation of adult obesity programmes. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
    Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) 08/2014; 18(51). DOI:10.3310/hta18510 · 5.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    International journal of body composition research 12/2012; 10(4):115-121.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Excess intra-abdominal adipose tissue accumulation, often termed visceral obesity, is part of a phenotype including dysfunctional subcutaneous adipose tissue expansion and ectopic triglyceride storage closely related to clustering cardiometabolic risk factors. Hypertriglyceridemia; increased free fatty acid availability; adipose tissue release of proinflammatory cytokines; liver insulin resistance and inflammation; increased liver VLDL synthesis and secretion; reduced clearance of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins; presence of small, dense LDL particles; and reduced HDL cholesterol levels are among the many metabolic alterations closely related to this condition. Age, gender, genetics, and ethnicity are broad etiological factors contributing to variation in visceral adipose tissue accumulation. Specific mechanisms responsible for proportionally increased visceral fat storage when facing positive energy balance and weight gain may involve sex hormones, local cortisol production in abdominal adipose tissues, endocannabinoids, growth hormone, and dietary fructose. Physiological characteristics of abdominal adipose tissues such as adipocyte size and number, lipolytic responsiveness, lipid storage capacity, and inflammatory cytokine production are significant correlates and even possible determinants of the increased cardiometabolic risk associated with visceral obesity. Thiazolidinediones, estrogen replacement in postmenopausal women, and testosterone replacement in androgen-deficient men have been shown to favorably modulate body fat distribution and cardiometabolic risk to various degrees. However, some of these therapies must now be considered in the context of their serious side effects. Lifestyle interventions leading to weight loss generally induce preferential mobilization of visceral fat. In clinical practice, measuring waist circumference in addition to the body mass index could be helpful for the identification and management of a subgroup of overweight or obese patients at high cardiometabolic risk.
    Physiological Reviews 01/2013; 93(1):359-404. DOI:10.1152/physrev.00033.2011 · 29.04 Impact Factor