We have located links that may give you full text access.
Receiver operating characteristic analysis of body mass index, triceps skinfold thickness, and arm girth for obesity screening in children and adolescents.
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1999 December
BACKGROUND: Valid and practical methods based on health-related criteria for obesity screening in children and adolescents are not available. Arbitrarily defined body mass index (BMI) cutoffs have been proposed to select adolescents at high risk of developing obesity in adulthood.
OBJECTIVE: We assessed the usefulness of BMI, triceps skinfold thickness, and upper arm girth for screening for obesity by using a health-related definition of obesity (> or = 25% body fat in boys and > or = 30% body fat in girls) and a criterion method (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry) that estimates percentage fat without the potential bias associated with other methods in adolescents.
DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study of Portuguese boys (n = 165) and girls (n = 163) aged 10-15 y. Nonparametric receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to define the best tradeoff between true-positive and false-positive rates.
RESULTS: True-positive rates ranged from 67% to 87% and from 50% to 100% in girls and boys, respectively, and false-positive rates ranged from 0% to 19% and from 5% to 26%, respectively. For children aged 10-11 y, the areas under the curves (AUCs) for ROCs, an index of diagnostic accuracy, were close to 1.0, suggesting very good accuracy. For older boys and girls, AUCs for triceps skinfold thickness were similar to or greater than AUCs for BMI and upper arm girth.
CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that triceps skinfold thickness gives the best results for obesity screening in adolescents aged 10-15 y. BMI and upper arm girth were reasonable alternatives, except in 14-15-y-old boys, in whom both indexes were only marginally able to discriminate obesity.
OBJECTIVE: We assessed the usefulness of BMI, triceps skinfold thickness, and upper arm girth for screening for obesity by using a health-related definition of obesity (> or = 25% body fat in boys and > or = 30% body fat in girls) and a criterion method (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry) that estimates percentage fat without the potential bias associated with other methods in adolescents.
DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study of Portuguese boys (n = 165) and girls (n = 163) aged 10-15 y. Nonparametric receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to define the best tradeoff between true-positive and false-positive rates.
RESULTS: True-positive rates ranged from 67% to 87% and from 50% to 100% in girls and boys, respectively, and false-positive rates ranged from 0% to 19% and from 5% to 26%, respectively. For children aged 10-11 y, the areas under the curves (AUCs) for ROCs, an index of diagnostic accuracy, were close to 1.0, suggesting very good accuracy. For older boys and girls, AUCs for triceps skinfold thickness were similar to or greater than AUCs for BMI and upper arm girth.
CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that triceps skinfold thickness gives the best results for obesity screening in adolescents aged 10-15 y. BMI and upper arm girth were reasonable alternatives, except in 14-15-y-old boys, in whom both indexes were only marginally able to discriminate obesity.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app