Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorOrtega Porcel, Francisco Bartolomé 
dc.contributor.authorSu, Xuemei
dc.contributor.authorLavie, Carl
dc.contributor.authorBlair, Steven N.
dc.date.accessioned2020-07-21T10:31:47Z
dc.date.available2020-07-21T10:31:47Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.citationPublished version: Ortega, F. B., Sui, X., Lavie, C. J., & Blair, S. N. (2016, April). Body mass index, the most widely used but also widely criticized index: would a criterion standard measure of total body fat be a better predictor of cardiovascular disease mortality?. In Mayo Clinic Proceedings (Vol. 91, No. 4, pp. 443-455). [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2016.01.008]es_ES
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10481/63077
dc.descriptionThis work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (grant nos. AG06945, HL62508, and R21DK088195).es_ES
dc.description.abstractObjectives—To examine whether an accurate measure (using a gold-standard method) of total body fat (BF) would be a better predictor of cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality than body mass index (BMI). Participants and Methods—A total of 60,335 participants were examined between January 1, 1979, and December 31, 2003, and then followed-up for mean of 15.2 years. BMI was estimated by standard procedures. Indices of body composition [i.e. BF%, fat mass index (FMI), fat-free mass (FFM) and FFM index (FFMI)] were derived from either skinfold thicknesses or hydrostatic weighing. For exact comparisons, the indices studied were categorized identically using sexspecific percentiles. Results—Compared with a medium BMI, a very high BMI was associated with hazard ratios (HR) of 2.7 (confidence interval, CI:2.1-3.3) for CVD mortality, a stronger association than for BF % or FMI; i.e. HR=1.6(CI:1.3-1.9) and 2.2(CI:1.8-2.7), respectively. Compared with a medium FFMI, a very high FFMI was associated with a HR of 2.2 (CI:1.7-2.7) for CVD mortality, with these estimates being markedly smaller for FFM, i.e. HR=1.2(CI:0.9-1.6). When the analyses were restricted only to the sample with hydrostatic assessments (N=29,959), the results were nearly identical, with even slightly larger differences in favor of BMI, i.e. HR=3.0 (CI:2.2-4.0) compared with BF% and FMI, i.e. HR=1.5(CI:1.2-1.9) and 2.1(CI:1.6-2.7) respectively. We estimated Harrell c-index as an indicator of discriminant/predictive ability for these models and observed that the c-index in models including BMI was significantly higher than that in models including BF% or FMI (all P values <.005). Conclusions—The simple and inexpensive measure of BMI can be as clinically important or even more than total adiposity measures assessed by accurate and expensive methods. Physiological explanations for these findings are discussed.es_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipUnited States Department of Health & Human Services National Institutes of Health (NIH) - USA AG06945 HL62508 R21DK088195es_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherElsevieres_ES
dc.rightsAtribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 España*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/es/*
dc.titleBody Mass Index, the Most Widely Used but also Widely Criticized Index: Would a Gold-Standard Measure of Total Body Fat be a Better Predictor of Cardiovascular Disease Mortality?es_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_ES
dc.rights.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.mayocp.2016.01.008
dc.type.hasVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/submittedVersiones_ES


Files in this item

[PDF]

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 España
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 España