Comparison of self-reported and directly measured weight and height among women of reproductive age: a systematic review and meta-analysis

SEIJO M; MINKAS N; CORMICK G; COMANDE D; CIAPPONI A; BELIZAN J

Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica

Wiley Online Library

Año: 2018

1600-0412

Introduction. The use of self-report as a strategy for collecting data on women?sweight and height is widespread in both clinical practice and epidemiologicalstudies. This study aimed to compare self-reported and directly measuredweight and height among women of reproductive age. Material andmethods. In July 2015 we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE,CINHAL, LILACS and gray literature. We included women of reproductive age(12?49 years old) independently of their weight or height at the time of thestudy. Women with any condition that implies regular tracking of their weight(for example, eating disorder) were excluded. Two reviewers independentlyselected, extracted and assessed the risk of bias of the studies. We usedREVMAN 5.3 to perform the meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed usingthe I2 statistic. Results. Following eligibility assessment, 21 studies of 18 749women met the inclusion criteria. The results of the meta-analysis showed anunderestimation of weight by 0.94 kg (95% CI 1.17 to 0.71 kg;p < 0.0001; I2 = 0%) in the overall sample and an overestimation of height by0.36 cm (95% CI 0.20?0.51; p < 0.0001; I2 = 35%) based on self-reported vs.directly measured values. Conclusion. This review shows that self-reportedweight and height of women of reproductive age differs slightly from directmeasures. We consider that the magnitude at which self-reported data over- orunderestimates the real value, is negligible regarding clinical and research use.