4.7 Article

Is relative leg length a biomarker of childhood nutrition? Long-term follow-up of the Hyderabad Nutrition Trial

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 40, 期 4, 页码 1022-1029

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyr074

关键词

Leg length; childhood nutrition; risk factors; cohort studies; community trial

资金

  1. Indian Council of Medical Research
  2. United States Assistance for International Development
  3. Royal College of Physicians, UK
  4. Medical Research Council [G0600705] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. MRC [G0600705] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Methods In a community trial of nutritional supplementation, villages from adjacent administrative areas were selected to serve as intervention (n = 15) and control (n = 14) arms. In the intervention villages, balanced protein-calorie supplementation (2.51 MJ, 20 g protein) was offered daily to pregnant women and their offspring until the age of 6 years. Children born in the trial were re-examined 15 years later to assess components of height. Results A total of 1165 adolescents (intervention: 654, 49% of trial participants; control: 511, 41% of trial participants) aged 13-18 years were examined. Supplemented children were 10 mm taller [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.4 to 18.7 mm], but almost all of the increase was in trunk length (9 mm, 95% CI: 2.6 to 15.4 mm). The age- and gender-adjusted beta-coefficients for the association of nutritional supplementation with relative trunk, leg and lower leg lengths (expressed as standard deviation scores) were 0.26 (95% CI: 0.11 to 0.42), 0.08 (95% CI: -0.03 to 0.19) and 0.03 (95% CI: -0.08 to 0.15) respectively, thereby unsupportive of cephalocaudal gradient in growth. Conclusions In this nutritional supplementation trial in an undernourished population, we were unable to confirm relative leg length as a biomarker of childhood nutrition. Alternative explanations may underlie the reported associations between childhood conditions and relative leg length.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据