| Autor: |
Faria ACVPF; Laboratory for Applied Health Research (LabinSaúde), Coimbra, Portugal.; Polytechnic of Coimbra, Coimbra Health School, Dietetics and Nutrition, Coimbra, Portugal., Martinho DV; Polytechnic of Coimbra, Coimbra Health School, Dietetics and Nutrition, Coimbra, Portugal.; Faculty of Sports Science and Physical Education, 37829University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal., Ribeiro Abreu BR; Polytechnic of Coimbra, Coimbra Health School, Dietetics and Nutrition, Coimbra, Portugal., Costa Franco BR; Polytechnic of Coimbra, Coimbra Health School, Dietetics and Nutrition, Coimbra, Portugal., Moreira Carrilho LA; Polytechnic of Coimbra, Coimbra Health School, Dietetics and Nutrition, Coimbra, Portugal., Azaruja MC; Polytechnic of Coimbra, Coimbra Health School, Dietetics and Nutrition, Coimbra, Portugal., Tavares Mendes PM; Sporting Clube de Portugal, Lisbon, Portugal., Simões Serra MD; Clinic Studio Medicina & Saúde, Águeda, Aveiro, Portugal., Teixeira Lemos JA; Futebol Clube de Paços de Ferreira, Paços de Ferreira, Portugal., de Figueiredo JP; Department of Complementary Sciences, School of Health Technology of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal. |
| Abstrakt: |
Background: 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. |
