4.0 Article

Anthropometric and body-mass composition suggests an intrinsic feature in Williams-Beuren syndrome

期刊

REVISTA DA ASSOCIACAO MEDICA BRASILEIRA
卷 57, 期 6, 页码 681-685

出版社

ASSOC MEDICA BRASILEIRA
DOI: 10.1590/S0104-42302011000600016

关键词

Natural history; nutritional status; body composition; Williams syndrome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Although considered a well-known condition, there is only one study describing the body composition among individuals with Williams-Beuren syndrome. The aim was to characterize the nutritional status in Brazilian individuals with this condition. Methods: Cross-sectional study was designed to evaluate clinical and nutritional data of 17 Brazilian patients. Z-scores for height, weight, body mass index, triceps and subscapular skinfold thickness, arm circumference, arm muscle area, arm fat area were calculated. Wilcoxon's test was used to investigate differences between the z-scores of the anthropometrical measures and zero. Results: Four children were considered stunted and two severely malnourished. The z-score mean value for height was -1.14 +/- 1.00 (p-value = 0.004), for weight, -0.67 +/- 1.19 (p-value = 0.0443), for arm circumference, -0.94 +/- 1.14 (p-value = 0.0222), for triceps skinfold thickness, -0.59 +/- 0.63 (p-value = 0.0042) and for arm fat area -0.67 +/- 0.67 (p-value = 0.0061). Conclusion: Short stature seen in this series confirms a previous study describing this feature in a German population, which would suggest it as an intrinsic feature in Williams-Beuren syndrome. In addition, sldnfold thickness measures have not been previously performed in this syndrome and detected abnormalities in fat stores in this sample. Considering this method a fast and low-cost way to evaluate body composition, similar studies could be performed in other populations in order to better characterize this issue. Morbidity related with this genetics condition and information for clinical investigation and clinical follow-up are also discussed.

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

4.0
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