Table 1. Childhood adiposity indices.
| Adiposity index | Study details | Mean difference (fixed) | 95% CI | Significance | Heterogeneity test |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total fat mass (DEXA) | Adelaide (n = 61) Auckland (n = 98) |
0.20 | −0.11, 0.51 | p = 0.25 | p = 0.15, I2 = 52% |
| Abdominal fat mass (DEXA) | Adelaide (n = 61) Auckland (n = 98) |
79.80 | −59.32, 218.92 | p = 0.26 | p = 0.11, I2 = 60% |
| Abdominal fat volume (MRI) | Adelaide (n = 12) Auckland (n = 92) |
0.44 | 0.06, 0.82 | p = 0.02 | p = 0.84, I2 = 0% |
| Abdominal subcutaneous fat volume (MRI) | Adelaide (n = 12) Auckland (n = 92) |
0.29 | −0.07, 0.65 | p = 0.11 | p = 0.95, I2 = 0% |
| Visceral fat volume (MRI) | Adelaide (n = 12) Auckland (n = 92) |
0.41 | 0.05, 0.77 | p = 0.03 | p = 0.85, I2 = 0% |
| Thigh fat mass (DEXA) | Adelaide (n = 61) Auckland (n = 98) |
90.77 | −148.68, 330.23 | p = 0.46 | p = 0.46, I2 = 61% |
| Arm fat mass (DEXA) | Adelaide (n = 61) Auckland (n = 98) |
102.57 | −73.34, 278.47 | p = 0.25 | p = 0.09, I2 = 65% |
| Bicep skinfold thickness | Adelaide (n = 109) Auckland (n = 98) |
0.53 | −0.60, 1.66 | p = 0.35 | p = 0.21, I2 = 36% |
| Tricep skinfold thickness | Adelaide (n = 109) Auckland (n = 98) |
0.64 | −0.76, 2.04 | p = 0.83 | p = 0.37, I2 = 70% |
| Subscapular skinfold thickness | Adelaide (n = 109) Auckland (n = 98) |
1.05 | −0.70, 2.79 | p = 0.24 | p = 0.32, I2 = 0% |
All outcomes expressed as mean difference, with the exception of abdominal, abdominal subcutaneous, and visceral fat volumes, which are expressed as standard mean difference. All outcomes used fixed model effects and 95% CI. Significant p-values are in bold. Units: fat mass, grams; fat volume, cm3; skinfold thickness, millimetres. All data from Rowan et al. [41]. DEXA, dual X-ray absorptiometry.