Anthropometric quantities are widely used in epidemiologic research as possible confounders, risk factors, or outcomes. 3D laser-based body scans (BS) allow evaluation of dozens of quantities in short time with minimal physical contact between observers and probands. The aim of this study was to compare BS with classical manual anthropometric (CA) assessments with respect to feasibility, reliability, and validity. We performed a study on 108 individuals with multiple measurements of BS and CA to estimate intra- and inter-rater reliabilities for both. We suggested BS equivalents of CA measurements and determined validity of BS considering CA the gold standard. Throughout the study, the overall concordance correlation coefficient (OCCC) was chosen as indicator of agreement. BS was slightly more time consuming but better accepted than CA. For CA, OCCCs for intra- and inter-rater reliability were greater than 0.8 for all nine quantities studied. For BS, 9 of 154 quantities showed reliabilities below 0.7. BS proxies for CA measurements showed good agreement (minimum OCCC > 0.77) after offset correction. Thigh length showed higher reliability in BS while upper arm length showed higher reliability in CA. Except for these issues, reliabilities of CA measurements and their BS equivalents were comparable.

Anthropometric quantities are widely used in epidemiologic research as possible confounders, risk factors, or outcomes. 3D laser-based body scans (BS) allow evaluation of dozens of quantities in short time with minimal physical contact between observers and probands. The aim of this study was to compare BS with classical manual anthropometric (CA) assessments with respect to feasibility, reliability, and validity. We performed a study on 108 individuals with multiple measurements of BS and CA to estimate intra- and inter-rater reliabilities for both. We suggested BS equivalents of CA measurements and determined validity of BS considering CA the gold standard. Throughout the study, the overall concordance correlation coefficient (OCCC) was chosen as indicator of agreement. BS was slightly more time consuming but better accepted than CA. For CA, OCCCs for intra- and inter-rater reliability were greater than 0.8 for all nine quantities studied. For BS, 9 of 154 quantities showed reliabilities below 0.7. BS proxies for CA measurements showed good agreement (minimum OCCC > 0.77) after offset correction. Thigh length showed higher reliability in BS while upper arm length showed higher reliability in CA. Except for these issues, reliabilities of CA measurements and their BS equivalents were comparable.