Abstract
Objectives:
To predict body height using hand length and hand breadth in pharmacy and nursing students at Misrake Ghion College, Northeast Ethiopia.
Methods:
A cross-sectional prospective study was conducted from October 15 to January 20, 2021. The study was carried out on 316 students (160 males and 156 females). The study participants were from the Amhara ethnic groups, with the age range of 18 to 25 years. Body height, hand length, and hand breath were measured and analyzed using SPSS version 23. The strength of association was evaluated using correlation analysis. The significance level was set at p < 0.05. A paired sample t test was performed. Regression equations were derived using simple and multiple linear regression analysis.
Results:
Hand length and hand breadth had a positive significant correlation with body height in both male and females. In both males and females, left hand length had a strong significant correlation (males r = 0.768, females r = 0.670), followed by right hand length (males r = 0.711, females r = 0.626). Regarding hand length, right hand breadth (males r = 0.671, female r = 0.438) and left hand length (males r = 0.504, females r = 0.525). There was a significant bilateral difference in hand length and hand breadth on its right and left sides (p < 0.05). Simple and multiple regression equations were formulated for each sex.
Conclusion:
In both males and females, body height can be estimated from hand length and breadth using simple or multiple regression equations.
Keywords: Forensic pathology, Body height, Hand length, Hand breadth, Misrake Ghion College
Introduction
Stature or body height study is one of the interests of anthropologists, anatomists, and forensic medicine experts. It is among the most significant and helpful anthropometric parameters that establish a person’s physical identity. Stature, also known as body height, is the height at which a person naturally stands when they are erect and measures from the top of their head to the soles of their feet (1, 2).
The main four anthropological parameters used in modern medicine and forensic science are stature, or bodily height, sex, age, and race. These parameters aid in establishing the biological profile and in the identification of certain individuals (3). Age, sex, and stature are all crucial parameters in determining the identity of human body remains (4). Due to recent natural disasters like earthquakes, tsunamis, and floods as well as man-made disasters like terrorist attacks, bomb blasts, car accidents, wars, and plane crashes, identifying an individual from mutilated, decomposed, and amputated body fragments has become a difficult task in medicolegal cases. In dense woodlands, wild animals also prey on victims, making it challenging to identify the corpse (5).
The height of a person is a total of the length of certain bones and appendages of the body and represents certain relationship in form of proportions to the total stature. It is crucial to anthropological study and the procedure of identification required by medicolegal professionals (6). All bodily parts, including the limbs, head, trunk, vertebral column, have a clear biological relationship to stature. However, there are structural differences in limb bone length in relation to stature, as well as according to age, sex, race, body side, climate, inheritance, and nutrition (5).
The two main methods used by forensic professionals and researchers to predict stature are anatomical and mathematical methods. The first method relies on the total length of the body’s skeleton, whereas the second method (mathematical) takes into account the length of the long bones, which is typically calculated with the aid of regression equations. This mathematical technique calculates stature by determining the relationship between individual bone measurements and the height of the living body. When it comes to cadavers that have lost their physical integrity or have decomposed, the anatomical technique has several limits. As a result, experts frequently use mathematical methods to determine stature (7).
Equations produced for one population do not always give accurate results for another population due to differences in diet, environment and lifestyle of each population (8). Identification becomes necessary in the living, recently dead persons, decomposed bodies, skeletal remains and is required in civil and criminal cases (9).
The relationship between stature and other body components is currently the subject of numerous studies in diverse populations. Many of them have made the correlation between stature and hand dimensions. However, no research on estimating body height or stature from hand length and hand breadth has been done in Ethiopia. Therefore, the aim of this study was to predict body height from hand length and hand breadth.
Material and Methods
Study Setting, Study Design and Study Period
This cross-sectional prospective study was conducted at Misrake Ghion College from October 15, 2020, to January 20, 2021. Misrake Ghion College is of one the private colleges in Dessie Town. It is 401 km from Addis Ababa, the capital city of Ethiopia, and 478 km far away from Bhairdar, the capital city of the Amhara regional state. The college has departments of Nursing, Pharmacy, Accounting, and Management. A total of 316 (160 male and 156 female) study participants (Pharmacy and Nursing) were enrolled in this study. The required information was taken from this sample of Amhara Ethnic group. According to the 2007 national census, the Amhara ethnic group is the second largest ethnic group in Ethiopia which accounted for 26.2%.
Eligibility Criterion
Inclusion Criteria
All first year regular students in the age between 18 and 25 years and who were Amhara ethnic group were included in the study.
Exclusion Criteria
Students who did not belong to the Amhara ethnic group, as well as those having a history of spin or hand injury, and anomalies in the hand, spine, or lower limb and forearm fractures were excluded in study. Stunting and acromegaly students were also excluded in the study.
Data Collection Tool and Procedures
A properly designed and prepared checklist was used to collect the relevant information for the study. The tool or questioners used to collect pertinent information were adapted from previous studies (10, 11). The tool contains written consent, sociodemographic characteristics, and anthropometric parameters like stature, hand length, and hand breadth. Then, using a purposive sampling method, the study subjects were selected following receipt of a permission letter from the dean of Misrake College. A general physical observation and interview were conducted before the data collection from each study participant to see whether they were in a satisfactory state of good health.
Standing body height was measured to the nearest 0.1 centimeters (cm) using a stadiometer. The study subject was standing in anatomical position on a horizontal resting plane with barefooted. In the Frankfurt horizontal plane, the head was adjusted. All measurements were taken by bringing the sliding horizontal bar up on the vertex. It was measured from the sole of the feet to the vertex of the head as recommended by the International Biological Program (12).
To measure hand length and breadth, the study participant was asked to pace his straight hand on a flat table with the dorsum of the hand touching the flat surface of the table and the palmar surface of the hand pointing upward. The medial four fingers were kept extended and adducted. The thumb was kept extended and abducted. And then, hand length was measured using a non-elastic measuring tape meter from the palmer aspect of hand as a straight distance between the midpoint of the distal transverse crease of the wrist joint and the tip of the middle finger (13). Hand breadth was also measured using a non-elastic measuring tape meter as the maximum distance between the radial side of the second metacarpophalangeal joint to ulnar side of the fifth metacarpophalangeal joint (14). These two hand dimension parameters were measured to the nearest 0.1 cm.
Data Quality Control
The relevant data were collected by 2 Bachelors of Science in Nursing. To maintain data quality, training was given to data collectors concerning anthropometric measurements and common errors in measurements. A well-structured checklist was used to collect the data. The measurements were taken via standardized anthropometric measuring tools: a stadiometer and a nonelastic measuring tape meter. The measurements were performed from 8 a.m. to 11 a.m. to minimize diurnal differences. To minimize interobserver bias, all study samples were collected only by two trained data collectors. And also, to maintain reproducibility, each measurement was repeated two times, and the average was recorded. The principal investigator oversaw the data collection on a daily basis, and the collected data were checked for completeness and consistency.
Data Processing and Analysis
The relevant data, which was collected from each study participant, was checked for completeness, accuracy, and clarity before analysis. The data were entered in EPI data version 3.1 and exported to SPSS version 23 for analysis. The data were cleaned and edited before analysis. The normality distribution of the sample data were tested using a Q-Q plot and frequency distribution (histogram), and it was approximately normally distributed. The correlation between body height and hand dimension was tested using correlation coefficients. The significant correlation was set at a p value of less than 0.05. Simple and multiple regression analyses were carried out to formulate a regression model for the prediction of body height. The multicollinearity between the independent variables was assessed using the variance inflation factor, and it was less than ten. The predictive accuracy of the regression models was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (r 2) and standard estimate of error (SSE). Finally, the data were presented using statements, tables, charts, and graphs.
Ethical Considerations
Ethical clearance was obtained from the institutional research review board of Wollo University, College of Medicine and Health Sciences. Along with ethical clearance, a supportive letter was sent to Misrake Ghion College. The purpose and significance of the study were explained to the participants, and then written informed consent was obtained from each participant before the beginning of the study. The relevant information for the study was taken from each study subject anonymously. Furthermore, participation was voluntary so that participants can interrupt from giving information for any reason.
Results
Descriptive Statics of Study Variables
Out of 316 enrolled study participants, males were 160 (50.6%) and females were 156 (49.4%). The age of study participants ranged from 18 to 25, with a mean of 20.32 ± 1.25 years. The mean age was 20.73 ± 1.44 years for a male study participant and 19.90 ± 0.84 years for a female study participant. The average body height for both male and female study participants was 167.03 ± 8.41. Body height was ranged from 156.0 to 184.5 cm with a mean body height of 172.08 ± 6.74 cm for male study participants, whereas female study participants’ body height was ranged from 149.0 to 178.4 cm with an average height of 161.8 ± 6.62 cm. The current study also observed that the overall mean height, hand length, and hand breadth of male respondents were greater than female respondents (Tables 1, 2, and 3).
Table 1:
Descriptive Statistics of Body Height, Hand Length, and Hand Breadth for Both Male and Female Study Participants.
| Parameters (cm) | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Standard deviation (SD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stature/height | 149.00 | 184.50 | 167.03 | 8.41 |
| Rt hand length | 15.00 | 20.50 | 17.60 | 1.25 |
| Rt hand breadth | 6.80 | 10.00 | 8.23 | 0.74 |
| Lt hand length | 15.00 | 20.50 | 17.69 | 1.30 |
| Lt hand breadth | 6.80 | 9.50 | 8.08 | 0.68 |
Abbreviations: cm, centimeter; Lt, left; Rt, right.
Table 2:
Descriptive Statistics of Body Height, Hand Length, and Breadth of for Male Participants.
| Parameters (cm) | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Standard deviation (SD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stature/height | 156.0 | 184.5 | 172.08 | 6.74 |
| Rt hand length | 16.0 | 20.5 | 18.49 | 0.93 |
| Rt hand breadth | 7.2 | 9.6 | 8.70 | 0.59 |
| Lt hand length | 16.3 | 20.5 | 18.61 | 0.92 |
| Lt hand breadth | 7.4 | 9.5 | 8.57 | 0.48 |
Abbreviations: cm, centimeter; Lt, left; Rt, right.
Table 3:
Descriptive Statistics of Body Height, Hand Length, and Breadth of Female Participants.
| Parameters (cm) | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Standard deviation (SD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stature/height | 149.0 | 178.4 | 161.8 | 6.62 |
| Rt hand length | 15.0 | 18.8 | 16.7 | 0.83 |
| Rt hand breadth | 6.8 | 10.0 | 7.75 | 0.52 |
| Lt hand length | 15.0 | 18.8 | 16.74 | 0.90 |
| Lt hand breadth | 6.8 | 9.0 | 7.57 | 0.44 |
Abbreviations: cm, centimeter; Lt, left; Rt, right.
Correlation Between Body Height and Hand Dimensions (Hand Length and Breadth)
The Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) between body height and hand dimensions is presented in Table 4. It was observed that body height had a positive significant correlation with hand length and hand breadth in males and females as well as in both genders (combined). In males, the strongest correlation was observed in left hand length (r = 0.768, p = 0.000), followed by right hand length (r = 0.711, p = 0.000). Similarly, in females, a strong correlation was observed in left hand length (r = 0.670, p = 0.000), followed by right hand length (r = 0.626, p = 0.000). It was also evident that both genders (combined) had a strong correlation as compared to each gender and revealed that left hand length and right hand length had the highest correlation, each accounted for r = 0.835, p = 0.000 and r = 0.808, p = 0.000, respectively.
Table 4:
Correlation of Height/Stature With Hand Length and Hand Breadth of Study Participants.
| Parameters (cm) | Male (n = 160) | Female (n = 156) | Combined (n = 316) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Height/stature | Height/stature | Height/stature | ||||
| r | Sig. | R | Sig. | r | Sig. | |
| Rt hand length | 0.711 | 0.000 | 0.626 | 0.000 | 0.808 | 0.000 |
| Rt hand breadth | 0.671 | 0.000 | 0.438 | 0.000 | 0.736 | 0.000 |
| Lt hand length | 0.768 | 0.000 | 0.670 | 0.000 | 0.835 | 0.000 |
| Lt hand breadth | 0.504 | 0.000 | 0.525 | 0.000 | 0.724 | 0.000 |
Abbreviations: cm, centimeter; Lt, left; r, Pearson’s correlation coefficient; R, correlation coefficient; Rt, right; Sig., level of significance (p < 0.05).
Prediction of Body Height From Hand Length and Breadth
Simple and complex linear regression analyses were carried out to develop predictive models. In males, it was evident that a better regression model was obtained using a simple linear regression compared to multiple linear regression analysis, so that a better predictive model was formulated (height/stature [cm] = 67.01 + 5.65x LtHL [cm], r = 0.768, p = 0.000), followed by a multiple linear regression model (height/stature [cm] = 72.31 + 3.469x RtHL [cm] + 4.1x RtHB [cm], r = 0.762, p = 0.000) (Table 5).
Table 5:
Prediction of Height/Stature From Hand Length and Breadth of Male Participants.
| Parameters (cm) | R | R 2 | Adjusted R 2 | SEE | Regression equations (height in cm) | Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rt hand length | 0.711 | 0.506 | 0.503 | 4.755 | 76.32 + 5.18x RtHL | 0.000 |
| Rt hand breadth | 0.671 | 0.450 | 0.447 | 5.015 | 105.95 + 7.60x RtHB | 0.000 |
| Lt hand length | 0.768 | 0.589 | 0.587 | 4.333 | 67.01 + 5.65x LtHL | 0.000 |
| Lt hand breadth | 0.504 | 0.254 | 0.249 | 5.843 | 111.2 + 7.11x LtHB | 0.000 |
| RtHL-RtHB | 0.762 | 0.581 | 0.576 | 4.390 | 72.31 + 3.469x RtHL+ 4.1x RtHB | 0.000 |
Abbreviations: cm, centimeter; Lt, left; LtHB, left hand breadth; LtHL, left hand length; R, correlation coefficient; R 2, coefficient of determination; Rt, right; RtHB, right hand breadth; RtHL, right hand length; SEE, standard error of estimate; Sig., significance at p < 0.05.
In female, a better regression model was formulated using multiple linear regressions as compared to simple linear regression analysis. As a result, a better predictive model (height/stature [cm] = 69.82 + 4.03x LtHL [cm] + 3.244x LtHB [cm]; r = 0.69, p = 0.000) was developed, followed by a simple linear regression (height/stature [cm] = 79.39 + 4.93x LtHL [cm]; r = 0.67, p = 0.000) (Table 6).
Table 6:
Prediction of Height/Stature From Hand Length and Breadth of Female Participants.
| Parameters (cm) | R | R 2 | Adjusted R 2 | SEE | Regression equations (height in cm) | Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rt hand length | 0.626 | 0.392 | 0.388 | 5.178 | 78.33 + 5x RtHL | 0.000 |
| Rt hand breadth | 0.438 | 0.192 | 0.186 | 5.972 | 118.94 + 5.54x RtHB | 0.000 |
| Lt hand length | 0.670 | 0.449 | 0.445 | 4.932 | 79.39 + 4.93x LtHL | 0.000 |
| Lt hand breadth | 0.525 | 0.276 | 0.271 | 5.654 | 102.32 + 7.86x LtHB | 0.000 |
| RtHL-RtHB | 0.647 | 0.418 | 0.411 | 5.084 | 71.97 + 4.31x RtHL + 2.31x RtHB | 0.010 |
| LtHL-LtHB | 0.693 | 0.481 | 0.474 | 4.802 | 69.82 + 4.03x LtHL + 3.244x LtHB | 0.000 |
Abbreviations: cm, centimeter; Lt, left; LtHB, left hand breadth; LtHL, left hand length; R, correlation coefficient; R 2, coefficient of determination; Rt, right; RtHL, right hand length; RtHB, right hand breadth; SEE, standard error of estimate; Sig., significance at p < 0.05.
In both genders, it was evident that multiple linear regression models had a better predictive capacity compared to simple linear regression models. So, a better correlation coefficient was identified on stature/height (cm) = 69.74 + 2.45x RtHB (cm) + 3.94x LtHL (cm); r = 0.847, p = 0.00, followed by stature/height (cm) = 69.95 + 4.54x LtHL (cm) + 2.07x RtHL (cm); r = 0.841, p = 0.000 (Table 7).
Table 7:
Prediction of Height/Stature From Hand Length and Breadth for Both Participants in Combination (n = 316).
| Parameters (cm) | R | R 2 | Adjusted R 2 | SEE | Regression equations (height in cm) | Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rt hand length | 0.808 | 0.652 | 0.651 | 4.969 | 71.61 + 5.42x RtHL | 0.000 |
| Rt hand breadth | 0.736 | 0.541 | 0.540 | 5.709 | 97.90 + 8.40x RtHB | 0.000 |
| Lt hand length | 0.835 | 0.697 | 0.696 | 4.637 | 71.57 + 5. 40x LtHL | 0.000 |
| Lt hand breadth | 0.724 | 0.524 | 0.522 | 5.816 | 94.41 + 8.99x LtHB | 0.000 |
| RtHB-LtHL | 0.847 | 0.718 | 0.714 | 4.497 | 69.74 + 2.45x RtHB + 3.94x LtHL | 0.000 |
| RtHL-RtHB | 0.827 | 0.685 | 0.682 | 4.741 | 70.73 + 3.97x RtHL + 3.20x RtHB | 0.000 |
| LtHL-RtHB | 0.841 | 0.708 | 0.706 | 4.565 | 69.95 + 4.54x LtHL + 2.07x RtHL | 0.000 |
Abbreviations: cm, centimeter; Lt, left; LtHB, left hand breadth; LtHL, left hand length; R, correlation coefficient; R 2, coefficient of determination; Rt, right; RtHL, right hand length; RtHB, right hand breadth; SEE, standard error of estimate; Sig., significance at p < 0.05.
The predictive accuracy of the regression models was evaluated using the SEE and coefficient of determination (r 2) and is presented in Tables 5, 6, and 7.
The existence of bilateral asymmetry between the right and left hand length and breadth was evaluated by using a paired sample t-test and it was statistically significant (p < 0.05) for both male and female study participants (Table 8). The paired sample t test was also used for the evaluation of estimated body height and actual body height for each hand length and breadth in male and female study participants. The results are presented in Table 9 and Table 10. In males, both right and left hand dimensions (hand length and hand breadth) had statistically insignificant differences (p > 0.05) between the mean values of body height and actual body height (Table 9). In females, it was also revealed that there were statistically insignificant differences (p > 0.05) between the mean values of estimated body height and actual body height (Table 10).
Table 8:
Paired Sample t Test to See Existence Bilateral Difference for Right and Left Hand Length and Breadth Measurements in Both Sexes.
| Gender | Parameters | Mean | T value | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Right | Left | ||||
| Male | Hand length | 18.49 | 18.61 | −5.041 | 0.000 |
| Hand breadth | 8.70 | 8.57 | 4.587 | 0.000 | |
| Female | Hand length | 16.7 | 16.74 | −1.143 | 0.003 |
| Hand breadth | 7.75 | 7.57 | 6.067 | 0.000 | |
Table 9:
Paired Sample t Test to See Existence of Mean Difference Between Actual and Estimated Body Weight of Male Study Participants.
| Parameters (cm) | Actual mean (height ± SD) | Estimated mean (height ± SD) | MD | SEM | 95% CI | T | df | Sig. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | upper | ||||||||
| Rt hand length | 172.08 ± 6.74 | 172.08 ± 4.79 | 0.00 | 0.37 | −0.74 | 0.74 | 0.000 | 159 | 1.000 |
| Lt hand length | 172.08 ± 6.74 | 172.08 ± 5.18 | 0.00 | 0.34 | −0.67 | 0.67 | 0.000 | 159 | 1.000 |
| Rt hand breadth | 172.08 ± 6.74 | 172.08 ± 4.52 | 0.00 | 0.39 | −0.78 | 0.78 | 0.000 | 159 | 1.000 |
| Lt hand breadth | 172.08 ± 6.74 | 172.08 ± 3.39 | 0.00 | 0.46 | −0.91 | 0.91 | 0.000 | 159 | 1.000 |
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; cm, centimeter; Lt, left; MD, mean difference; Rt, right; SD, standard deviation; SEM, standard error of mean; Sig., level of significance (p < 0.05).
Table 10:
Paired Sample t Test to See Existence of Mean Difference Between Actual and Estimated Body Height of Female Study Participants.
| Parameters (cm) | Actual mean (height ± SD) | Estimated mean (height ± SD) | MD | SEM | 95% CI | T | df | Sig. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | ||||||||
| Rt hand length | 161.85 ± 6.62 | 161.85 ± 4.15 | 0.00 | 0.41 | −0.82 | 0.82 | 0.000 | 155 | 1.000 |
| Lt hand length | 161.85 ± 6.62 | 161.85 ± 4.44 | 0.00 | 0.39 | −0.78 | 0.78 | 0.000 | 155 | 1.000 |
| Rt hand breadth | 161.85 ± 6.62 | 161.85 ± 2.90 | 0.00 | 0.48 | −0.94 | 0.94 | 0.000 | 155 | 1.000 |
| Lt hand breadth | 161.85 ± 6.62 | 161.85 ± 3.48 | 0.00 | 0.45 | −0.89 | 0.89 | 0.000 | 155 | 1.000 |
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; cm, centimeter; Lt, left; MD, mean difference; Rt, right; SD, standard deviation; SEM, standard error of mean; Sig., level of significance (p < 0.05).
Discussion
In the current study which were conducted in Negroid anthropological group, there was a significant positive correlation between hand length and body height in both males and females (p < 0.05). The correlation coefficient (r) between males’ body height and hand length was 0.768 for the left side and 0.711 for the right side, respectively. Additionally, the association between females’ body height and hand length was r = 0.670 for the left side and r = 0.626 for the right side, respectively. A strong significant correlation was also investigated in both males and females (combined) in left hand length (r = 0.835), followed by left hand length (r = 0.808).
According to the current study, hand length showed a stronger association in both sexes than hand breadth (p < 0.05). Therefore, hand length is a more accurate predictor of individual body height. The results of a study conducted in Gujarat, 2015 (Brachycephals anthropological group), Cross River State population (Negroid anthropological group), North Saudi Population (Asians anthropological group), Rare Tribe of Kerala State (mongoloid anthropological group), Gujarat, 2014 (Brachycephals anthropological group), South and North India subjects (Caucasoid anthropological group), and Slovak (Caucasoid anthropological group) also confirmed this conclusion. These studies were carried out by Varu et al. (13), Oria et al. (10), Ibrahim et al. (15), Geetha et al. (16), Patel et al. (17), Kavyashree et al. (18), and Uhrová et al. (19), respectively.
In the present finding, there was a bilateral asymmetry in hand length and breadth for both male and female study participants. This finding was also identified by a study carried out on India population (Caucasoid anthropological group) and the Australian population (Caucasoid anthropological group), which was conducted by Rastogi et al. (20), Kanchan et al. (21), Krishan et al. (22), Ishak et al. (23). Bilateral hand asymmetry is most commonly characterized by more intense physical activity on one side compared to the other, where regular usage of the dominant side results in stronger muscles and better developed bones on that side (22, 24).
In the present study, the finding in male participant was supported by the study carried out in India by Supare et al.; reported that the correlation coefficient between body height and hand length was r = 0.75 and r = 0.74 for left and right side of hand length, respectively (25). In females, however, Supare et al. discovered an almost identical correlation between stature and hand length, with r = 0.75 and 0.74 for right and left hand length, respectively. It is also supported by a study conducted in the north Indian population (Caucasoid anthropological group) by Rastogi et al. (20), which showed that the correlation between body height and hand length in male was r = 0.664 and r = 0.659 for the left and right side of hand length, respectively. However, the correlation between body height and hand length in female participants was inconsistent with the current study, where the correlation coefficients were r = 0.717 and r = 0.694 for the right and left hand length, respectively. This discrepancy may be caused by variations in the measuring methods, sample size, and age-group between the two studies. Another study conducted in the Slovak Republic (Caucasoid anthropological group) by Uhrová et al. reported that both the right and left hand length of male participants had an equal correlation, each accounting for r = 0.63. Similarly, in females, both right hand and left hand length had an equal correlation coefficient, each accounting for r = 0.58 (19). This disagreement with the current study might be due to a difference in sample size, environmental, and/or sociodemographic characteristics. Nevertheless, in both males and females, a strong correlation was observed in hand length as compared to hand breadth, which is in line with the current findings.
Another study conducted in Nigeria (Negroid anthropological group) by Okon et al. revealed that hand length had a moderately significant linear correlation with stature r = 0.538 and r = 0.503 for male right and left hands, respectively, and r = 0.473 and r = 0.511 for female right and left hands, respectively (26). The discrepancy with the current study might be due to differences in the age-group of study participants and sample size. Furthermore, the present study was not supported by a study carried out in the North Saudi Population (Asians anthropological group) by Ibrahim et al., where in males, Rt HL, r = 0.66, and Lt HL, r = 0.644. Additionally, in females Ibrahim et al. study had inconsistency with the current study in which the correlation was RtHL, r = 0.760, and Lt HL, r = 0.612, respectively (15). This can be because the two research’ sample sizes and measuring methods varied.
Concerning the finding in hand breadth, in males, the right hand breadth had a strong significant correlation (r = 0.671) compared to the left hand length (r = 0.504). In females, the left hand breadth (r = 0.525) had a better correlation compared to the right hand breadth (r = 0.438). This finding was not supported by a study conducted in India (Caucasoid anthropological group) by Supare et al. (25), which showed that left hand breadth had a relatively better correlation (r = 0.46) followed by right hand breadth (r = 0.45), right hand breadth (r = 0.56), and left hand breadth (r = 0.55) for males and females, respectively. This discrepancy may result from a variation in sample size, age group, measurement methods, and/or socioeconomics. On the contrary, Varu et al. study in Gujarat (Brachycephals anthropological group) supported the current study by reporting that in males, the right hand breadth (r = 0.535) had a better correlation than the left hand breadth (r = 0.427) (13). However, in females, this study contradicts the current study by which the right hand breadth (r = 0.472) had a relatively better significant correlation compared to the left hand breadth (r = 0.423). This discrepancy might be due to a difference in sample size.
Moreover, in both male and female, multiple linear regression models were a better predictor of body height as compared to linear regression models. This finding agrees with a study carried out on the North Saudi Population (Asians anthropological group), West Bengal (mongoloid anthropological group), north and south Indians (Caucasoid anthropological group), and the Rare Tribe of Kerala State in India (mongoloid anthropological group), which was conducted by Ibrahim et al. (15), Pal et al. (11), Rastogi et al. (20), Geetha et al. (16), respectively. Additionally, the current study also derived a regression formula for both males and females (combined), and this will have a role in determining the body height from the remnant body part of the unknown sex.
Conclusion
Body height had a positive significant correlation (p < 0.05) with hand length and hand breadth in both males and females. It was observed that hand length had a strong correlation in the case of males compared to females. The regression models were derived from the hand length and hand breadth to predict the body height of an individual. Multiple regression models are better predictors of body height as compared to linear regression models. The study concluded that the body height of an individual can be estimated from hand length and breadth with a SEE. Therefore, the study will be important in medicolegal cases for the identification of individuals from the remnants of their hands.
Limitation of study
Since there were no published literatures on other ethnic groups in Ethiopia, the finding of the current study was not compared at the country level. Besides, the study was conducted only with 316 individuals of certain age groups. The study was conducted in only one ethnic group so that the regression models which were developed will be used for only for those populations in which samples were withdrawn.
Acknowledgment
The authors acknowledge the contributions of study participants and data collectors.
Authors
Chalachew Tiruneh, MSc, Department of Biomedical Science, College of Medicine and Health Science, Injibara University
Roles: Project conception and/or design, Data acquisition, analysis and/or interpretation, manuscript creation and/or revision, approved final version for publication, principal investigator of the current study, general supervision, and writing assistance and/or technical editing.
Daniel Teshome, MSc, Department of Anatomy, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Wollo University
Roles: Data acquisition, analysis and/or interpretation, manuscript creation and/or revision, approved final version for publication, accountable for all aspects of the work, and writing assistance and/or technical editing.
Teshome Geberemeskel, MSc, Department of Anatomy, College of Health Sciences, Woldia University
Roles: Data acquisition, analysis and/or interpretation, manuscript creation and/or revision, approved final version for publication, accountable for all aspects of the work, and writing assistance and/or technical editing.
Mohammed Derso, MSc, Department of Biochemistry, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Wollo University
Roles: Data acquisition, analysis and/or interpretation, manuscript creation and/or revision, approved final version for publication, accountable for all aspects of the work, general administrative support, and writing assistance and/or technical editing.
Mogesie Necho, MSc, Department of Psychiatry, College of Medicine and Health Science, Wollo University
Roles: Data acquisition, analysis and/or interpretation, manuscript creation and/or revision, approved final version for publication, accountable for all aspects of the work, and writing assistance and/or technical editing.
Yossef Teshome, MSc, Department of Anatomy, College of Health Sciences, Addis Ababa University
Roles: Data acquisition, analysis and/or interpretation, manuscript creation and/or revision, approved final version for publication, accountable for all aspects of the work, and writing assistance and/or technical editing.
Abebaw Molla, MSc, Department of Public Health, College of Medicine and Health Science, Injibara University
Roles: Data acquisition, analysis and/or interpretation, manuscript creation and/or revision, approved final version for publication, accountable for all aspects of the work, general supervision, and writing assistance and/or technical editing.
Footnotes
Availability of Supporting Data: The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Consent for Publication: Not applicable
Ethical Approval and Consent to Participate: Ethical clearance was obtained from the institutional research review board of Wollo University, College of Medicine and Health Sciences. Along with ethical clearance, a supportive letter was sent to Misrake Ghion College. The purpose and significance of the study were explained to the participants, and then written informed consent was obtained from each study participant before the beginning of the study. The relevant information for the study was taken from each study subject anonymously. Furthermore, participation was voluntary so that participants can interrupt from giving information for any reason.
The author declares that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this article.
Financial Disclosure: The authors have indicated that they do not have financial relationships to disclose that are relevant to this manuscript.
ORCID iD: Daniel Teshome 
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9124-3045
References
- 1. Khatun SS, Sharma N, Jain SK, Gupta A. Estimation of stature from percutaneous tibial length in Indian population. Int J Anat Res. 2016;4(3):2571–2576. [Google Scholar]
- 2. Agrawal J, Raichandani L, Kataria SK, Raichandani S. Estimation of stature from hand length and length of phalanges. J Evol Med Dent Sci. 2013; 2(50):9651–9657. [Google Scholar]
- 3. Krishan K, Kanchan T, Sharma A. Multiplication factor versus regression analysis in stature estimation from hand and foot dimensions. J Forensic Leg Med. 2012;19(4):211–214. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Rastogi P, Kanchan T, Menezes RG, Yoganarasimha K. Middle finger length—a predictor of stature in the Indian population. Med Sci Law. 2009; 49(2):123–126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Wankhede KP, Anjankar VP, Parchand MP, et al. Estimation of stature from head length and head breadth in Central Indian population: an anthropometric study. Int J Anat Res. 2015;3(1):954–957. [Google Scholar]
- 6. Anirban D, Arindam B, Prithviraj K. Estimation of stature of Eastern Indians from measurements of tibial length. Anatom Physiol. 2013;3(115):2161–0940.1000115. [Google Scholar]
- 7. Ahmed AA. Estimation of stature from the upper limb measurements of Sudanese adults. Forensic Sci Int. 2013;228(1-3):178.e1-178. e7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Song-in K, Riengrojpitak S, Tiensuwan M. Estimation of stature from forearm length in Thai children. J Food Health. 2013;6(1):131–140. [Google Scholar]
- 9. Arif M, Rasool SH, Chaudhary MK, Shakeel Z. Estimation of stature: upper arm length—a reliable predictor of stature. Professional Med J. 2018; 25(11):1696–1700. [Google Scholar]
- 10. Oria RS, Igiri AO, Egwu OA, Nandi ME. Prediction of stature from hand length and breadth—anthropometric study on an adult Cross River State population. Ann Biol. 2016;4(1):12. [Google Scholar]
- 11. Pal A, De S, Sengupta P, et al. Estimation of stature from hand dimensions in Bengalee population, West Bengal, India. Egypt J Forensic Sci. 2016;6(2):90–98. [Google Scholar]
- 12. Ibegbu A, David E, Hamman W, et al. Hand length as a determinant of height in school children. Adv Life Sci. 2015;5:12–17. [Google Scholar]
- 13. Varu PR, Manvar PJ, Mangal HM, et al. Determination of stature from hand dimensions. J Med Res. 2015;1(3):104–107. [Google Scholar]
- 14. Dey S, Kapoor AK. Hand length and hand breadth: a study of correlation statistics among human population. Int J Sci Res. 2015;4(4):148–150. [Google Scholar]
- 15. Ibrahim MA, Khalifa AM, Hassan HA, et al. Estimation of stature from hand dimensions in North Saudi population, medicolegal view. Saudi J Forensic Med Sci. 2018;1(1):19. [Google Scholar]
- 16. Geetha G, Athavale SA. Estimation of stature from hand and foot measurements in a rare tribe of Kerala state in India. J Clin Diagnostic Res. 2015;9(10):HC01. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Patel R, Parekh U, Patel P. A study of estimation of stature from hand length in Gujarat. NHL J Med Sci. 2014;3(2). [Google Scholar]
- 18. Kavyashree AN, Bindurani MK, Asha KR. Determination of stature from hand dimensions in Indian population. J Int Dent Med Res. 2015;2(3):209–214. [Google Scholar]
- 19. Uhrová P, Beňuš R, Masnicová S, et al. Estimation of stature using hand and foot dimensions in Slovak adults. Leg Med. 2015;17(2):92–97. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Rastogi P, Nagesh KR, Yoganarasimha K. Estimation of stature from hand dimensions of north and south Indians. Leg Med. 2008;10(4):185–189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Kanchan T, Krishan K, Sharma A, Menezes RG. A study of correlation of hand and foot dimensions for personal identification in mass disasters. Forensic Sci Int. 2010;199(1-3):112.e1-112. e6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Krishan K, Sharma A. Estimation of stature from dimensions of hands and feet in a North Indian population. J Forensic Leg Med. 2007;14(6):327–332. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Ishak NI, Hemy N, Franklin D. Estimation of stature from hand and handprint dimensions in a Western Australian population. Forensic Sci Int. 2012;216(1-3):199.e1-199. e7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Krishan K, Kanchan T, DiMaggio JA. A study of limb asymmetry and its effect on estimation of stature in forensic case work. Forensic Sci Int. 2010;200(1-3):181.e1-181. e5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Supare M, Pandit S, Bagul A. Estimation of stature from hand length and hand breadth in medical students of Maharashtra, India. Int J Health Allied Sci. 2015;4(3):154–159. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Okon KA, Ekanem AU, Edem GD, et al. Estimation of stature (height) of Ibibio ethnic group of Akwa Ibom state, Nigeria using measurement of hand length. Int J Res Med Sci. 2019;1(2):4–10. [Google Scholar]