The usefulness of "corrected" body mass index vs. self-reported body mass index: Comparing the population distributions, sensitivity, specificity, and predictive utility of three correction equations using Canadian population-based data

Daniel J. Dutton, Lindsay McLaren

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

40 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: National data on body mass index (BMI), computed from self-reported height and weight, is readily available for many populations including the Canadian population. Because self-reported weight is found to be systematically under-reported, it has been proposed that the bias in self-reported BMI can be corrected using equations derived from data sets which include both self-reported and measured height and weight. Such correction equations have been developed and adopted. We aim to evaluate the usefulness (i.e., distributional similarity; sensitivity and specificity; and predictive utility vis-à-vis disease outcomes) of existing and new correction equations in population-based research. Methods. The Canadian Community Health Surveys from 2005 and 2008 include both measured and self-reported values of height and weight, which allows for construction and evaluation of correction equations. We focused on adults age 18-65, and compared three correction equations (two correcting weight only, and one correcting BMI) against self-reported and measured BMI. We first compared population distributions of BMI. Second, we compared the sensitivity and specificity of self-reported BMI and corrected BMI against measured BMI. Third, we compared the self-reported and corrected BMI in terms of association with health outcomes using logistic regression. Results: All corrections outperformed self-report when estimating the full BMI distribution; the weight-only correction outperformed the BMI-only correction for females in the 23-28 kg/m2 BMI range. In terms of sensitivity/specificity, when estimating obesity prevalence, corrected values of BMI (from any equation) were superior to self-report. In terms of modelling BMI-disease outcome associations, findings were mixed, with no correction proving consistently superior to self-report. Conclusions: If researchers are interested in modelling the full population distribution of BMI, or estimating the prevalence of obesity in a population, then a correction of any kind included in this study is recommended. If the researcher is interested in using BMI as a predictor variable for modelling disease, then both self-reported and corrected BMI result in biased estimates of association.

Original languageEnglish
Article number430
JournalBMC Public Health
Volume14
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 6 2014
Externally publishedYes

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
We thank J. C. Herbert Emery for helpful feedback on the manuscript. DJD is supported by a Doctoral Traineeship in Population Health Intervention Research from the Canadian Population Health Intervention Research Network (PHIRNET). LM is supported by a Population Health Investigator Award from Alberta Innovates – Health Solutions.

ASJC Scopus Subject Areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The usefulness of "corrected" body mass index vs. self-reported body mass index: Comparing the population distributions, sensitivity, specificity, and predictive utility of three correction equations using Canadian population-based data'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this