4.5 Article

Body fat throughout childhood in 2647 healthy Danish children: agreement of BMI, waist circumference, skinfolds with dual X-ray absorptiometry

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
Volume 68, Issue 6, Pages 664-670

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/ejcn.2013.282

Keywords

body composition; body fat percentage; dual X-Ray absorptiometry; skinfold thickness; body mass index; waist circumference

Funding

  1. Rigshospitalet's Research Foundation
  2. Danish Medical Research Council [9700909]
  3. Danish Centre on Endocrine Disrupters [MST-621-00072]
  4. Svend Andersen's Foundation
  5. Vilhelm Bang's Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Total body fat percentage (%BF) evaluated by dual energy X-ray absorptiornetry (DXA) scans (DXA %BF) is widely recognized as a precise measure of fatness. We aimed to establish national reference curves for DXA %BF, %BF calculated from skinfolds (SF %BF) and waist circumference (WC) in healthy children, and to compare agreement between the different methods. SUBJECTS/METHODS: Based on 11 481 physical examinations (anthropometry) and 1200 DXA scans from a longitudinal cohort of Danish children (n = 2647), we established reference curves (LMS-method) for SF %BF, WC (birth to 14 years) and DXA %BF (8-14 years). Age-, and sex-specific Z-scores for body mass index (BMI), WC and SF %BF were compared. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for agreement of WC, SF %BF and BMI with DXA %BF to identify obese children (> + 1 s.d.). RESULTS: %BF differed with age, sex, pubertal stage and social class. SF %BF correlated strongly with DXA %BF (r = 0.86), BMI and WC also correlated positively with DXA %BF (Z-scores; r = 0.78 and 0.69). Sensitivity and specificity were 79.5 and 93.8 for SF %BF, 75.9 and 90.3 for BMI and 59.2 and 95.4 for WC. CONCLUSIONS: SF %BF showed the highest correlation and best agreement with DXA %BF in identifying children with excess fat (+ 1 s.d.).

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