ABSTRACT
To explore the best measurement of waist circumference related with intra-abdominal fat area evaluated by magnetic resonance imaging ( MRI). Totally 207 participants aged 20-60 years were enrolled. Waist circumference were measured at the levels of navel ( WC1) and the midpoint between costal brim and iliac cest (WC2). Intra-abdominal fat area was evaluated by MRI scan. Intra-abdominal fat area was significantly higher in men than in women [(132. 17 ± 59. 49 vs 70. 56 ± 35. 33)cm2 , P<0. 01]. Pearson correlation analysis showed that WC1 and WC2 were positively correlated with intra-abdominal fat area (r = 0. 779, r = 0. 809, both P<0. 01). Multiple linear stepwise regression analysis demonstrated that WC1 and WC2 were independently associated with intra-abdominal fat area(β=0. 553, R2 =0. 714, P<0. 01; β = 0. 603, R2 = 0. 735, P<0. 01). All of the two different measurements of waist circumference parameters may reflect intra-abdominal fat area, while WC1 seems to be the simpler one.
ABSTRACT
To explore the best measurement of waist circumference related with intra-abdominal fat area evaluated by magnetic resonance imaging ( MRI). Totally 207 participants aged 20-60 years were enrolled. Waist circumference were measured at the levels of navel ( WC1) and the midpoint between costal brim and iliac cest (WC2). Intra-abdominal fat area was evaluated by MRI scan. Intra-abdominal fat area was significantly higher in men than in women [(132. 17 ± 59. 49 vs 70. 56 ± 35. 33)cm2 , P<0. 01]. Pearson correlation analysis showed that WC1 and WC2 were positively correlated with intra-abdominal fat area (r = 0. 779, r = 0. 809, both P<0. 01). Multiple linear stepwise regression analysis demonstrated that WC1 and WC2 were independently associated with intra-abdominal fat area(β=0. 553, R2 =0. 714, P<0. 01; β = 0. 603, R2 = 0. 735, P<0. 01). All of the two different measurements of waist circumference parameters may reflect intra-abdominal fat area, while WC1 seems to be the simpler one.