4.7 Article

Overfat cutoffs and the optimal combination of body fat indices for detecting cardiometabolic risk among school-aged children

期刊

OBESITY
卷 31, 期 3, 页码 802-810

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/oby.23651

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to develop cutoffs and the optimal combination of body fat indices for screening cardiometabolic risk (CMR) among the pediatric population. The results showed that the FMI + TLR combination had higher statistical significance for discriminating CMR and its clustering compared to anthropometry-based obesity measures. The study provided suitable overfat cutoffs for screening CMR in Chinese children.
ObjectiveThis study aimed to develop cutoffs and the optimal combination for body fat indices for screening cardiometabolic risk (CMR) among the pediatric population. MethodsThis cross-sectional study consisted of 8710 (50.3% boys) Chinese children aged 6 to 18 years. Body fat indices, including fat mass index (FMI), body fat percentage, trunk to leg fat ratio (TLR), and android to gynoid fat ratio, were derived from dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was used to determine the best combination and optimal cutoffs of body fat indices to identify CMR. ResultsCompared with anthropometry-based obesity measures, i.e., BMI and waist circumference, the FMI + TLR combination presented statistically higher area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values for discriminating CMR and its clustering. The optimal overfat cutoffs of FMI and TLR were respectively determined at the 75th percentile in boys and at the 80th percentile of FMI and the 75th percentile of TLR in girls. Moreover, simplified thresholds derived from age-group-merged cutoffs showed similar performance as optimal cutoffs in detecting CMR. ConclusionsBoth the optimal and simplified overfat cutoffs were provided for the Chinese pediatric population. The use of FMI and TLR together allows for adequate screening of CMR and its clustering.

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