Reliability of anthropometric indicators for assessing abdominal obesity

The rising burden of abdominal obesity (AO) has emerged as a significant global public health concern. Three commonly used measures for assessing AO are waist circumference (WC), waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR). This raises an important question: which of these indicators provides the most reliable assessment of abdominal obesity? This commentary addresses this issue from two key perspectives: (a) comparative evaluation of the strengths and limitations, and (b) understanding the predictive power in assessing cardiometabolic risk of these three indicators. The available evidence suggests that, due to conceptual and clinical limitations, WHR is the least robust indicator of AO among the three. Furthermore, a comparative analysis indicates that WHtR not only overcomes several limitations associated with WC and WHR in estimating AO, but also serves as a more consistent and reliable predictor of cardiovascular risk across children, adolescents, and adults globally.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Discover Public Health
Published
2026-09-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12982-026-02701-8
Primary Topic
Body Composition Measurement Techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Reliability of anthropometric indicators for assessing abdominal obesity

S. S. Bhatia, Pritam Ghosh
Discover Public Health
Body Composition Measurement Techniques
article

Reliability of anthropometric indicators for assessing abdominal obesity

S. S. Bhatia, Pritam Ghosh
article en

Abstract

The rising burden of abdominal obesity (AO) has emerged as a significant global public health concern. Three commonly used measures for assessing AO are waist circumference (WC), waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR). This raises an important question: which of these indicators provides the most reliable assessment of abdominal obesity? This commentary addresses this issue from two key perspectives: (a) comparative evaluation of the strengths and limitations, and (b) understanding the predictive power in assessing cardiometabolic risk of these three indicators. The available evidence suggests that, due to conceptual and clinical limitations, WHR is the least robust indicator of AO among the three. Furthermore, a comparative analysis indicates that WHtR not only overcomes several limitations associated with WC and WHR in estimating AO, but also serves as a more consistent and reliable predictor of cardiovascular risk across children, adolescents, and adults globally.

Discover Public HealthVol. 23(1)
Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur (IN), Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University (IN)
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Body Composition Measurement Techniques
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.