4.7 Article

Diagnostic Performance of BMI Percentiles to Identify Adolescents With Metabolic Syndrome

期刊

PEDIATRICS
卷 133, 期 2, 页码 E330-E338

出版社

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2013-1308

关键词

weight status; youth; obesity; overweight; healthy fitness zone

资金

  1. Cooper Institute, Dallas, TX

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic performance of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and FITNESSGRAM (FGram) BMI standards for quantifying metabolic risk in youth. METHODS: Adolescents in the NHANES (n = 3385) were measured for anthropometric variables and metabolic risk factors. BMI percentiles were calculated, and youth were categorized by weight status (using CDC and FGram thresholds). Participants were also categorized by presence or absence of metabolic syndrome. The CDC and FGram standards were compared by prevalence of metabolic abnormalities, various diagnostic criteria, and odds of metabolic syndrome. Receiver operating characteristic curves were also created to identify optimal BMI percentiles to detect metabolic syndrome. RESULTS: The prevalence of metabolic syndrome in obese youth was 19% to 35%, compared with <2% in the normal-weight groups. The odds of metabolic syndrome for obese boys and girls were 46 to 67 and 19 to 22 times greater, respectively, than for normal-weight youth. The receiver operating characteristic analyses identified optimal thresholds similar to the CDC standards for boys and the FGram standards for girls. Overall, BMI thresholds were more strongly associated with metabolic syndrome in boys than in girls. CONCLUSIONS: Both the CDC and FGram standards are predictive of metabolic syndrome. The diagnostic utility of the CDC thresholds outperformed the FGram values for boys, whereas FGram standards were slightly better thresholds for girls. The use of a common set of thresholds for school and clinical applications would provide advantages for public health and clinical research and practice.

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