Caliper and ultrasound (US) are used to measure subcutaneous fat tissue depth (SFT) and then to calculate total body fat. There is no evidence-based recommendation as to whether caliper or US are equally accurate. The aim of this paper was therefore to compare reliability of both methods. In this methodical study, 54 participants (BMI: 24.8 ± 3.5 kg/m²; Age: 43.2 ± 21.7 years) were included. Using systematic body mapping, the SFT of 56 areas was measured. We also analyzed 4 body sites via MRI. A comparison between caliper and US detected clear differences in mean SFT of all areas (0.83 ± 0.33 cm vs. 1.14 ± 0.54 cm; p < 0.001) showing moderate reliability (ICC 0.669, 95%CI: 0.625–0.712). US and MRI revealed in the abdominal area a SFT twice as thick as caliper (2.43 ± 1.36 cm vs. 2.26 ± 1.32 cm vs. 1.15 ± 0.66 cm; respectively). Caliper and US revealed excellent intrarater (ICC caliper: 0.944, 95%CI: 0.926–0.963; US: 0.934, 95%CI: 0.924–0.944) and good interrater reliability (ICC caliper: 0.794, 95%CI: 0.754–0.835; US: 0.825, 95%CI: 0.794–0.857). Despite the high reliability in measuring SFT that caliper and US show, our comparison of the two methods yielded clear differences in SFT, particularly in the abdominal area. In accuracy terms, US is preferable for most mapping areas.

卡尺和超声波 (US) 用于测量皮下脂肪组织深度 (SFT)，然后计算全身脂肪。关于卡尺或美国是否同样准确，没有基于证据的建议。因此，本文的目的是比较这两种方法的可靠性。在这项有条不紊的研究中，54 名参与者（BMI：24.8 ± 3.5 kg/m ²; 年龄：43.2 ± 21.7 岁）包括在内。使用系统的身体绘图，测量了 56 个区域的 SFT。我们还通过 MRI 分析了 4 个身体部位。卡尺和 US 之间的比较发现所有区域的平均 SFT 存在明显差异（0.83 ± 0.33 厘米与 1.14 ± 0.54 厘米；p < 0.001），显示出中等可靠性（ICC 0.669，95%CI：0.625–0.712）。US 和 MRI 显示腹部区域的 SFT 厚度是卡尺的两倍（分别为 2.43 ± 1.36 cm 对 2.26 ± 1.32 cm 对 1.15 ± 0.66 cm）。Caliper 和 US 揭示了出色的评估者内部（ICC 卡尺：0.944，95%CI：0.926–0.963；美国：0.934，95%CI：0.924–0.944）和良好的评估者间可靠性（ICC 卡尺：0.794，95%CI：0.754–0.835；美国：0.825，95%CI：0.794–0.857）。尽管卡尺和美国显示测量 SFT 的可靠性很高，但我们对这两种方法的比较在 SFT 方面产生了明显差异，特别是在腹部。就准确性而言，美国更适合大多数测绘区域。