Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10316/113864
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorFaria, Ana Catarina Vaz Pinheiro de Furtado-
dc.contributor.authorMartinho, Diogo Vicente-
dc.contributor.authorRibeiro Abreu, Bruno Rafael-
dc.contributor.authorCosta Franco, Bruno Rafael-
dc.contributor.authorMoreira Carrilho, Lara Alexandre-
dc.contributor.authorAzaruja, Madalena Carraça-
dc.contributor.authorTavares Mendes, Pedro Miguel-
dc.contributor.authorSimões Serra, Mariana Duarte-
dc.contributor.authorTeixeira Lemos, João Alexandre-
dc.contributor.authorde Figueiredo, João Paulo-
dc.date.accessioned2024-03-07T11:27:05Z-
dc.date.available2024-03-07T11:27:05Z-
dc.date.issued2023-03-
dc.identifier.issn0260-1060pt
dc.identifier.issn2047-945Xpt
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10316/113864-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Skinfold callipers are often used in clinical practice to estimate subcutaneous adipose tissue thickness. Recently, LipoTool emerged as a potential digital system to measure skinfolds, however comparisons with competing equipment are lacking. Aim: The aim of this study was to test the agreement between two competing skinfold callipers (digital and mechanical). Methods: The sample included 22 healthy male adult participants. A certified observer measured eight skinfolds twice using different skinfold callipers (digital and mechanical). Differences between equipment were tested using Wilcoxon signed rank test The distribution of error was examined using the normality test Results: Differences between skinfold callipers were significantly in five skinfolds: triceps (Z = -3.546; P < 0.001), subscapular (Z = -3.984; P < 0.001), suprailiac (Z = 3.024; P = 0.002), supraspinale (Z = 3.885; P < 0.001), abdominal (Z z=−2.937; P = 0.003), thigh (Z = -2.224; P = 0.026) and calf (Z = -2.052; P = 0.040). Differences between callipers were constant. Conclusions: Mechanical and digital callipers tended to record different values of skinfold thickness. Clinical examination should consider equipment-related variation in fat mass estimation.pt
dc.language.isoengpt
dc.publisherSAGEpt
dc.rightsopenAccesspt
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/pt
dc.subjectadipose tissuept
dc.subjectclinical examinationpt
dc.subjectbody compositionpt
dc.subjectanthropometrypt
dc.subjectskinfold thicknesspt
dc.subject.meshAdultpt
dc.subject.meshHumanspt
dc.subject.meshMalept
dc.subject.meshSkinfold Thicknesspt
dc.subject.meshLower Extremitypt
dc.subject.meshLegpt
dc.subject.meshMuscle, Skeletalpt
dc.titleAgreement between mechanical and digital skinfold calliperspt
dc.typearticle-
degois.publication.firstPage31pt
degois.publication.lastPage36pt
degois.publication.issue1pt
degois.publication.titleNutrition and Healthpt
dc.peerreviewedyespt
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/02601060221119247pt
degois.publication.volume29pt
dc.date.embargo2023-03-01*
uc.date.periodoEmbargo0pt
item.grantfulltextopen-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.openairetypearticle-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.fulltextCom Texto completo-
crisitem.author.researchunitCIDAF - Research Unit for Sport and Physical Activity-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0003-0825-4032-
Appears in Collections:FCDEF - Artigos em Revistas Internacionais
Files in This Item:
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

20
checked on May 8, 2024

Download(s)

8
checked on May 8, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric

Altmetric


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons