4.5 Article

The concurrent validity between leptin, BMI and skin folds during pregnancy and the year after

期刊

NUTRITION & DIABETES
卷 3, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nutd.2013.27

关键词

gestational weight gain; maternal leptin; maternal skin folds; BMI

资金

  1. The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) [4010.0017]
  2. The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: From a public health perspective it is important to know which of the currently used methods to estimate changes in maternal body fat during pregnancy and the year thereafter is the most adequate. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the concurrent validity between leptin and surrogates of fat measures: body mass index (BMI) and the sum of four skin folds. DESIGN: Data from the New Life(style) intervention study were analysed as a cohort study. SETTING: Midwife practices in The Netherlands. POPULATION: Healthy pregnant nulliparous women. METHODS: Anthropometric measurements were done and blood was collected at 15, 25 and 35 weeks of pregnancy and at 6, 26 and 52 weeks after delivery. Data were used if at least 4 out of the 6 measurements were available, leaving 87 women in the analyses. Spearman's correlation coefficients between leptin and BMI and between leptin and the sum of skin folds were calculated for each time point and for the changes between the time points. RESULTS: Correlations between leptin and BMI varied from 0.69 to 0.81. Correlations between leptin and the sum of skin folds were comparable, varying between 0.65 and 0.81. Correlations between changes in leptin and changes in BMI and the sum of skin folds, respectively, were much lower compared with cross-sectional correlations. CONCLUSION: Because of the high correlation among the three methods and because of the overlapping intervals, all methods seem to be equally adequate to estimate changes in maternal body fat during pregnancy and the year thereafter.

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

4.5
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