Diagnostic performance of body mass index to identify obesity as defined by body adiposity: A systematic review and meta-analysis

D. O. Okorodudu, M. F. Jumean, Victor Manuel Montori, A. Romero-Corral, Virend Somers, P. J. Erwin, Francisco Lopez-Jimenez

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

411 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective:We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that assessed the performance of body mass index (BMI) to detect body adiposity.Design:Data sources were MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and SCOPUS. To be included, studies must have assessed the performance of BMI to measure body adiposity, provided standard values of diagnostic performance, and used a body composition technique as the reference standard for body fat percent (BF%) measurement. We obtained pooled summary statistics for sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). The inconsistency statistic (I2) assessed potential heterogeneity.Results:The search strategy yielded 3341 potentially relevant abstracts, and 25 articles met our predefined inclusion criteria. These studies evaluated 32 different samples totaling 31 968 patients. Commonly used BMI cutoffs to diagnose obesity showed a pooled sensitivity to detect high adiposity of 0.50 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.43-0.57) and a pooled specificity of 0.90 (CI: 0.86-0.94). Positive LR was 5.88 (CI: 4.24-8.15), I 2 97.8%; the negative LR was 0.43 (CI: 0.37-0.50), I 2 98.5%; and the DOR was 17.91 (CI: 12.56-25.53), I 2 91.7%. Analysis of studies that used BMI cutoffs 30 had a pooled sensitivity of 0.42 (CI: 0.31-0.43) and a pooled specificity of 0.97 (CI: 0.96-0.97). Cutoff values and regional origin of the studies can only partially explain the heterogeneity seen in pooled DOR estimates.Conclusion:Commonly used BMI cutoff values to diagnose obesity have high specificity, but low sensitivity to identify adiposity, as they fail to identify half of the people with excess BF%.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)791-799
Number of pages9
JournalInternational Journal of Obesity
Volume34
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2010

Fingerprint

Adiposity
Meta-Analysis
Body Mass Index
Obesity
Confidence Intervals
Odds Ratio
Adipose Tissue
Body Weights and Measures
Sensitivity and Specificity
Information Storage and Retrieval
Body Composition
MEDLINE
Databases

Keywords

  • Adiposity
  • BMI
  • Body composition
  • Body mass index
  • Fat mass

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Nutrition and Dietetics
  • Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Diagnostic performance of body mass index to identify obesity as defined by body adiposity : A systematic review and meta-analysis. / Okorodudu, D. O.; Jumean, M. F.; Montori, Victor Manuel; Romero-Corral, A.; Somers, Virend; Erwin, P. J.; Lopez-Jimenez, Francisco.

In: International Journal of Obesity, Vol. 34, No. 5, 05.2010, p. 791-799.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{883fa2103512482783f3cd94e3015848,
title = "Diagnostic performance of body mass index to identify obesity as defined by body adiposity: A systematic review and meta-analysis",
abstract = "Objective:We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that assessed the performance of body mass index (BMI) to detect body adiposity.Design:Data sources were MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and SCOPUS. To be included, studies must have assessed the performance of BMI to measure body adiposity, provided standard values of diagnostic performance, and used a body composition technique as the reference standard for body fat percent (BF{\%}) measurement. We obtained pooled summary statistics for sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). The inconsistency statistic (I2) assessed potential heterogeneity.Results:The search strategy yielded 3341 potentially relevant abstracts, and 25 articles met our predefined inclusion criteria. These studies evaluated 32 different samples totaling 31 968 patients. Commonly used BMI cutoffs to diagnose obesity showed a pooled sensitivity to detect high adiposity of 0.50 (95{\%} confidence interval (CI): 0.43-0.57) and a pooled specificity of 0.90 (CI: 0.86-0.94). Positive LR was 5.88 (CI: 4.24-8.15), I 2 97.8{\%}; the negative LR was 0.43 (CI: 0.37-0.50), I 2 98.5{\%}; and the DOR was 17.91 (CI: 12.56-25.53), I 2 91.7{\%}. Analysis of studies that used BMI cutoffs 30 had a pooled sensitivity of 0.42 (CI: 0.31-0.43) and a pooled specificity of 0.97 (CI: 0.96-0.97). Cutoff values and regional origin of the studies can only partially explain the heterogeneity seen in pooled DOR estimates.Conclusion:Commonly used BMI cutoff values to diagnose obesity have high specificity, but low sensitivity to identify adiposity, as they fail to identify half of the people with excess BF{\%}.",
keywords = "Adiposity, BMI, Body composition, Body mass index, Fat mass",
author = "Okorodudu, {D. O.} and Jumean, {M. F.} and Montori, {Victor Manuel} and A. Romero-Corral and Virend Somers and Erwin, {P. J.} and Francisco Lopez-Jimenez",
year = "2010",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1038/ijo.2010.5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "34",
pages = "791--799",
journal = "International Journal of Obesity",
issn = "0307-0565",
publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Diagnostic performance of body mass index to identify obesity as defined by body adiposity

T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Okorodudu, D. O.

AU - Jumean, M. F.

AU - Montori, Victor Manuel

AU - Romero-Corral, A.

AU - Somers, Virend

AU - Erwin, P. J.

AU - Lopez-Jimenez, Francisco

PY - 2010/5

Y1 - 2010/5

N2 - Objective:We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that assessed the performance of body mass index (BMI) to detect body adiposity.Design:Data sources were MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and SCOPUS. To be included, studies must have assessed the performance of BMI to measure body adiposity, provided standard values of diagnostic performance, and used a body composition technique as the reference standard for body fat percent (BF%) measurement. We obtained pooled summary statistics for sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). The inconsistency statistic (I2) assessed potential heterogeneity.Results:The search strategy yielded 3341 potentially relevant abstracts, and 25 articles met our predefined inclusion criteria. These studies evaluated 32 different samples totaling 31 968 patients. Commonly used BMI cutoffs to diagnose obesity showed a pooled sensitivity to detect high adiposity of 0.50 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.43-0.57) and a pooled specificity of 0.90 (CI: 0.86-0.94). Positive LR was 5.88 (CI: 4.24-8.15), I 2 97.8%; the negative LR was 0.43 (CI: 0.37-0.50), I 2 98.5%; and the DOR was 17.91 (CI: 12.56-25.53), I 2 91.7%. Analysis of studies that used BMI cutoffs 30 had a pooled sensitivity of 0.42 (CI: 0.31-0.43) and a pooled specificity of 0.97 (CI: 0.96-0.97). Cutoff values and regional origin of the studies can only partially explain the heterogeneity seen in pooled DOR estimates.Conclusion:Commonly used BMI cutoff values to diagnose obesity have high specificity, but low sensitivity to identify adiposity, as they fail to identify half of the people with excess BF%.

AB - Objective:We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that assessed the performance of body mass index (BMI) to detect body adiposity.Design:Data sources were MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and SCOPUS. To be included, studies must have assessed the performance of BMI to measure body adiposity, provided standard values of diagnostic performance, and used a body composition technique as the reference standard for body fat percent (BF%) measurement. We obtained pooled summary statistics for sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). The inconsistency statistic (I2) assessed potential heterogeneity.Results:The search strategy yielded 3341 potentially relevant abstracts, and 25 articles met our predefined inclusion criteria. These studies evaluated 32 different samples totaling 31 968 patients. Commonly used BMI cutoffs to diagnose obesity showed a pooled sensitivity to detect high adiposity of 0.50 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.43-0.57) and a pooled specificity of 0.90 (CI: 0.86-0.94). Positive LR was 5.88 (CI: 4.24-8.15), I 2 97.8%; the negative LR was 0.43 (CI: 0.37-0.50), I 2 98.5%; and the DOR was 17.91 (CI: 12.56-25.53), I 2 91.7%. Analysis of studies that used BMI cutoffs 30 had a pooled sensitivity of 0.42 (CI: 0.31-0.43) and a pooled specificity of 0.97 (CI: 0.96-0.97). Cutoff values and regional origin of the studies can only partially explain the heterogeneity seen in pooled DOR estimates.Conclusion:Commonly used BMI cutoff values to diagnose obesity have high specificity, but low sensitivity to identify adiposity, as they fail to identify half of the people with excess BF%.

KW - Adiposity

KW - BMI

KW - Body composition

KW - Body mass index

KW - Fat mass

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77952290167&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77952290167&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1038/ijo.2010.5

DO - 10.1038/ijo.2010.5

M3 - Article

C2 - 20125098

AN - SCOPUS:77952290167

VL - 34

SP - 791

EP - 799

JO - International Journal of Obesity

JF - International Journal of Obesity

SN - 0307-0565

IS - 5

ER -