Digital anthropometric evaluation of young children: comparison to results acquired with conventional anthropometry

Abstract

Objective: Three-dimensional optical (3DO) imaging devices for acquiring anthropometric measurements are proliferating in healthcare facilities, although applicability in young children has not been evaluated; small body size and movement may limit device accuracy. The current study aim was to critically test three commercial 3DO devices in young children.

Methods: The number of successful scans and circumference measurements at six anatomic sites were quantified with the 3DO devices in 64 children, ages 5-8 years. Of the scans available for processing, 3DO and flexible tape-measure measurements made by a trained anthropometrist were compared.

Results: Sixty of 181 scans (33.1%) could not be processed for technical reasons. Of processed scans, mean 3DO-tape circumference differences tended to be small (~1-9%) and varied across systems; correlations and bias estimates also varied in strength across anatomic sites and systems (e.g., regression R²s, 0.54-0.97, all p < 0.01). Overall findings differed across devices; best results were for a multi-camera stationary system and less so for two rotating single- or dual-camera systems.

Conclusions: Available 3DO devices for quantifying anthropometric dimensions in adults vary in applicability in young children according to instrument design. These findings suggest the need for 3DO devices designed specifically for small and/or young children.

Figure 1.

Scan image errors present on a representative avatar produced by the SizeStream SS20 scanner. The image shows circumferences that do not align with the shape of the individual’s body and thus cannot be directly compared with reference circumferences. One example is the right mid-upper arm circumference, shown at the arrow, which not only surrounds the mid-upper arm but the chest as well.

Figure 2.

Circumferences estimated by the Fit3D Proscanner versus circumference tape measurements and associated Bland-Altman plots. For all regression plots, solid lines denote the line of regression while a dashed line indicates the line of identity. Regression equations with significant intercepts (p < 0.01) are marked *; equations with non-significant intercepts are set to the origin.

Figure 3.

Circumferences estimated by the Size Stream SS20 versus circumference tape measurements and associated Bland-Altman plots. For all regression plots, solid lines denote the line of regression while a dashed line indicates the line of identity. Regression equations with significant intercepts (p < 0.01) are marked *; equations with non-significant intercepts are set to the origin.

Figure 4.

Circumferences estimated by the Styku S100 versus circumference tape measurements and associated Bland-Altman plots. For all regression plots, solid lines denote the line of regression while a dashed line indicates the line of identity. Regression equations with significant intercepts (p < 0.01) are marked *; equations with non-significant intercepts are set to the origin.