4.5 Article

Anthropometric measurements in both sides of the body in the assessment of nutritional status in prepubertal children

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
Volume 56, Issue 12, Pages 1208-1215

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1601493

Keywords

anthropometry; handedness; child; nutrition surveys; skinfold thickness; circumferences

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To analyze the impact of choosing the left or the right side of the body on the anthropometric measurements and derived nutritional indices, in prepubertal children. Design: Cross-sectional pilot nutrition survey. Setting: General prepubertal school-age population. Subjects: One-hundred and sixty-four children (97 boys and 67 girls) aged 7-9y. Interventions: None. Results: The agreement between anthropometric measurements in both sides of the body showed that in males and in females, suprailiac skinfold thickness and arm circumference were significantly higher in the left than in the right side of the body. The agreement between body composition assessed by anthropometric measurements in both sides of the body showed that only in males was arm muscle area significantly higher in the left than in the right side, and arm fat percentage was higher in the right than in the left side of the body. Total body fat percentage calculated from skinfold thickness did not show statistically significant differences when skinfolds were obtained in the both sides of the body, either in boys and in girls. Conclusions: Our results show that differences between the sides of the body were lower than the technical error of measurement of the anthropometric measurements obtained and seem not to be biologically significant in this age group. It is necessary to standardize the method of anthropometric assessment of the nutritional status in terms of body side. Sponsorship: Universidad de Zaragoza (216-17).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available