Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorPetursson, Halfdan
dc.contributor.authorSigurdsson, Johann A
dc.contributor.authorBengtsson, Calle
dc.contributor.authorNilsen, Tom Ivar Lund
dc.contributor.authorGetz, Linn
dc.date.accessioned2015-10-30T11:12:15Z
dc.date.accessioned2016-03-08T14:45:05Z
dc.date.available2015-10-30T11:12:15Z
dc.date.available2016-03-08T14:45:05Z
dc.date.issued2011
dc.identifier.citationPLoS ONE 2011, 6(10)nb_NO
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11250/2381823
dc.description.abstractBackground: Distribution of body fat is more important than the amount of fat as a prognostic factor for life expectancy. Despite that, body mass index (BMI) still holds its status as the most used indicator of obesity in clinical work. Methods: We assessed the association of five different anthropometric measures with mortality in general and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality in particular using Cox proportional hazards models. Predictive properties were compared by computing integrated discrimination improvement and net reclassification improvement for two different prediction models. The measures studied were BMI, waist circumference, hip circumference, waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR). The study population was a prospective cohort of 62,223 Norwegians, age 20–79, followed up for mortality from 1995–1997 to the end of 2008 (mean follow-up 12.0 years) in the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT 2). Results: After adjusting for age, smoking and physical activity WHR and WHtR were found to be the strongest predictors of death. Hazard ratios (HRs) for CVD mortality per increase in WHR of one standard deviation were 1.23 for men and 1.27 for women. For WHtR, these HRs were 1.24 for men and 1.23 for women. WHR offered the greatest integrated discrimination improvement to the prediction models studied, followed by WHtR and waist circumference. Hip circumference was in strong inverse association with mortality when adjusting for waist circumference. In all analyses, BMI had weaker association with mortality than three of the other four measures studied. Conclusions: Our study adds further knowledge to the evidence that BMI is not the most appropriate measure of obesity in everyday clinical practice. WHR can reliably be measured and is as easy to calculate as BMI and is currently better documented than WHtR. It appears reasonable to recommend WHR as the primary measure of body composition and obesity.nb_NO
dc.language.isoengnb_NO
dc.publisherPublic Library of Sciencenb_NO
dc.titleBody configuration as a predictor of mortality: Comparison of five anthropometric measures in a 12 year follow-up of the Norwegian HUNT 2 studynb_NO
dc.typePeer reviewednb_NO
dc.typeJournal article
dc.date.updated2015-10-30T11:12:15Z
dc.description.versionpublishedVersion
dc.source.volume6nb_NO
dc.source.journalPLoS ONEnb_NO
dc.source.issue10nb_NO
dc.identifier.doi10.1371/journal.pone.0026621
dc.identifier.cristin847489
dc.description.localcode© 2011 Petursson et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.nb_NO


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel