1995
DOI: 10.2114/ahs.14.133
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Use of B-mode Ultrasound for Visceral Fat Mass Evaluation: Comparisons with Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Abstract: The validity of the visceral fat evaluation based on B-mode ultrasonography was tested on 30 healthy young women (mean age 19.6 years). The mass of visceral fat (VFM) was estimated by subtracting the subcutaneous fat mass (SFM) from the total body fat mass. The SFM was calculated as the sum of segmental subcutaneous fat mass determined from the surface area and mean thickness of adipose tissue in six body segments (face and neck, upper arm, forearm, thigh, lower leg, and trunk). Reproducibility of the determin… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
48
1
1

Year Published

2006
2006
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 53 publications
(51 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
1
48
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Abe et al (1993Abe et al ( , 1995 reported that the correlation between the predicted IFM and VFA at the umbilical level measured by MRI was 0.65 when calculating subcutaneous fat mass from whole body surface and mean subcutaneous thickness of whole body, and 0.75 when calculating subcutaneous fat mass as the sum of segmental subcutaneous fat mass determined from the surface area and mean subcutaneous thickness in six body segments (face and neck, upper arm, forearm, thigh, lower leg and trunk). In this study, a comparable relationship between VFA L4-5 measured by CT and IFM based on DXA (r ¼ 0.62) was obtained when predicting IFM based on DXA using mean of three skinfolds, which closely related with the mean of skinfolds at 14 sites.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…Abe et al (1993Abe et al ( , 1995 reported that the correlation between the predicted IFM and VFA at the umbilical level measured by MRI was 0.65 when calculating subcutaneous fat mass from whole body surface and mean subcutaneous thickness of whole body, and 0.75 when calculating subcutaneous fat mass as the sum of segmental subcutaneous fat mass determined from the surface area and mean subcutaneous thickness in six body segments (face and neck, upper arm, forearm, thigh, lower leg and trunk). In this study, a comparable relationship between VFA L4-5 measured by CT and IFM based on DXA (r ¼ 0.62) was obtained when predicting IFM based on DXA using mean of three skinfolds, which closely related with the mean of skinfolds at 14 sites.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous studies required skinfold measurements at 12-15 sites to predict subcutaneous fat mass (Davies et al, 1986;Hattori et al, 1991;Komiya et al, 1992Komiya et al, , 2000Abe et al, 1993Abe et al, , 1995Abe et al, , 1996a. In predicting segmental body surface and subcutaneous fat mass (Hattori et al, 1991;Abe et al, 1995), Abbreviations: BIA, bioelectrical impedance analysis; DXA, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; s.e.e., standard error of estimate; VFA, Visceral Fat Area. This Table shows the results of mean difference and regression analysis between the reference and predicted values when applying each prediction equation obtained in this study to the cross-validation group.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations