4.0 Article

No use for waist-for-height ratio in addition to body mass index to identify children with elevated blood pressure

Journal

BLOOD PRESSURE
Volume 22, Issue 1, Pages 17-20

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/08037051.2012.701376

Keywords

Body mass index; children; obesity; waist

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. In children, waist-for-height ratio (WHtR) has been proposed to identify subjects at higher risk of cardiovascular diseases. The utility of WHtR to identify children with elevated blood pressure (BP) is unclear. Design. Cross-sectional population-based study of schoolchildren. Methods. Weight, height, waist circumference and BP were measured in all sixth-grade schoolchildren of the canton de Vaud (Switzerland) in 2005/06. WHtR was computed as waist [cm]/height [cm]. Elevated BP was defined according to sex-, age- and height-specific US reference data. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) statistic was computed to compare the ability of body mass index (BMI) z-score and WHtR, alone or in combination, to identify children with elevated BP. Results. 5207 children participated (76% response) [2621 boys, 2586 girls; mean (+/- SD) age, 12.3 +/- 0.5 years; range: 10.1-14.9]. The prevalence of elevated BP was 11%. Mean WHtR was 0.44 +/- 0.05 (range: 0.29-0.77) and 11% had high WHtR (>0.5). BMI z-score and WHtR were strongly correlated (Spearman correlation coefficient r=0.76). Both indices were positively associated with elevated BP. AUCs for elevated BP was relatively low for BMI z-score (0.62) or for WHtR (0.62), and was not substantially improved when both indices were considered together (0.63). Conclusions. The ability of BMI z-score or WHtR to identify children aged 10-14 with elevated BP was weak. Adding WHtR did not confer additional discriminative power to BMI alone. These findings do not support the measurement of WHtR in addition to BMI to identify children with elevated BP.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available