Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Paper
  • Published:

Validity and reproducibility of ultrasonography for the measurement of intra-abdominal adipose tissue

International Journal of Obesity volume 25, pages 1346–1351 (2001)Cite this article

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We studied the validity and reproducibility of a new abdominal ultrasound protocol for the assessment of intra-abdominal adipose tissue.

MEASUREMENTS: Intra-abdominal adipose tissue was assessed by CT, MRI, anthropometry and ultrasonography on a single day. By ultrasonography the distance between peritoneum and lumbar spine was measured using a strict protocol, including the location of the measurements, pressure on the transducer and respiration. All measurements were repeated after 3 months.

RESULTS: The study population consisted of 19 overweight patients with a body mass index (BMI) of 32.9 kg/m2 (s.d. 3.7), intra-abdominal adipose tissue on CT 140.1 cm2 (s.d. 55.9), and a mean ultrasound distance of 9.8 cm (s.d. 2.5). There was a strong association between the CT and ultrasonographic measures: Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.81 (P<0.001). The correlation between ultrasound and waist circumference was 0.74 (P<0.001), the correlation between CT and waist circumference was 0.57 (P=0.01). Ultrasound appeared a good method to diagnose intra-abdominal obesity: the area under the ROC curve was 0.98. During the follow-up period of 3 months, the patients lost on average almost 3 kg of body weight. The correlation coefficient between changes in intra-abdominal adipose tissue assessed by CT and ultrasound was 0.74 (P<0.001). The correlation coefficient of the mean ultrasound distance assessed by two different sonographers at baseline was 0.94 (P<0.001), the mean difference 0.4 cm (s.d. 0.9), and the coefficient of variation 5.4%, indicating good reproducibility of the ultrasound measurements.

CONCLUSIONS: The results of this validation study show that abdominal ultrasound, using a strict protocol, is a reliable and reproducible method to assess the amount of intra-abdominal adipose tissue and to diagnose intra-abdominal obesity.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Calle EE, Thun MJ, Petrelli JM, Rodriguez C, Heath CWJ . Body-mass index and mortality in a prospective cohort of U.S. adults New Engl J Med 1999 341: 1097–1105.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hubert HB, Feinleib M, McNamara PM, Castelli WP . Obesity as an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease: a 26-year follow-up of participants in the Framingham Heart Study Circulation 1983 67: 968–977.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Vague J . The degree of masculine differentiation of obesities: a factor determining predisposition to diabetes, atherosclerosis, gout and uric calculous disease Am J Clin Nutr 1956 4: 20–34.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Després JP . Abdominal obesity as important component of insulin-resistance syndrome Nutrition 1993 9: 452–459.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Reaven GM . Banting lecture 1988. Role of insulin resistance in human disease Diabetes 1988 37: 1595–1607.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Laakso M . The possible pathophysiology of insulin resistance syndrome Cardiovascular Risk Factors 1993 3: 55–66.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Alberti KG, Zimmet PZ . Definition, diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus and its complications. Part 1: diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus provisional report of a WHO consultation Diabetic Med 1998 15: 539–553.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Seidell JC, Bakker CJ, van der Kooy K . Imaging techniques for measuring adipose-tissue distribution—a comparison between computed tomography and 1.5-T magnetic resonance Am J Clin Nutr 1990 51: 953–957.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. van der Kooy K, Leenen R, Deurenberg P, Seidell JC, Westerterp KR, Hautvast JG . Changes in fat-free mass in obese subjects after weight loss: a comparison of body composition measures Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1992 16: 675–683.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Armellini F, Zamboni M, Robbi R et al. Total and intra-abdominal fat measurements by ultrasound and computerized tomography Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1993 17: 209–214.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bellisari A, Roche AF, Siervogel RM . Reliability of B-mode ultrasonic measurements of subcutaneous adipose tissue and intra-abdominal depth: comparisons with skinfold thicknesses Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1993 17: 475–480.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tornaghi G, Raiteri R, Pozzato C et al. Anthropometric or ultrasonic measurements in assessment of visceral fat? A comparative study Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1994 18: 771–775.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Armellini F, Zamboni M, Rigo L, Todesco T, Bergamo-Andreis IA, Procacci C, Bosello O . The contribution of sonography to the measurement of intra-abdominal fat J Clin Ultrasound 1990 18: 563–567.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Armellini F, Zamboni M, Rigo L, Bergamo-Andreis IA, Robbi R, De Marchi M, Bosello O . Sonography detection of small intra-abdominal fat variations Int J Obes 1991 15: 847–852.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. van der Kooy K, Seidell JC . Techniques for the measurement of visceral fat: a practical guide Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1993 17: 187–196.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the ultrasound technician G Boonen for his valuable contribution and Professor WPThM Mali for his support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Julius Center for Patient Oriented Research, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    RP Stolk & DE Grobbee

  2. Department of Radiology, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    RP Stolk, O Wink, R Meijer & APG van Gils

  3. Department of Endocrinology, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    PMJ Zelissen

Authors
  1. RP Stolk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. O Wink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. PMJ Zelissen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R Meijer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. APG van Gils
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. DE Grobbee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to RP Stolk.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stolk, R., Wink, O., Zelissen, P. et al. Validity and reproducibility of ultrasonography for the measurement of intra-abdominal adipose tissue. Int J Obes 25, 1346–1351 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0801734

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0801734

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links