4.6 Article

Validation of a Useful Tool for Screening for Overweight and Obesity in Pre-Adolescents

期刊

APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL
卷 13, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/app13020929

关键词

anthropometry; childhood overweight; childhood obesity; brachial perimeter; arm circumference; MUAC; screening

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study validates the use of a simple tool called mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) to combat overweight and obesity in childhood health systems. The results show that the MUAC measurement can accurately screen for overweight and obesity in children aged 9 to 12 years or in grades 4 to 6. The cut-off points for overweight and obesity detection vary between genders and increase with age or grade level.
Featured Application Generalise the use of a simple and validated tool to combat overweight and obesity in childhood health systems. The purpose of this observational study with a convenience sample is to validate a simple measurement of the mid-upper arm circumference to establish the screening points using the mid-upper arm circumference tape (MUAC) for childhood overweight and obesity between 9 and 12 years of age, or from 4th grade to 6th grade. Prior to the screening study, a pilot validation study of the MUAC tape measure versus anthropometric standard tape was carried out. The total sample for the screening cut-offs was 360 school students. The results obtained had a predictive value according to the evaluation of the area under the curve of 0.96 and overweight detection cut-off points were established at 23.3 and 22.4 cm for 4th grade, 23.6 and 22.7 cm for 5th grade and 24.6 and 23.8 cm for 6th grade for boys and girls, respectively. The cut-off points for the detection of obesity were established at 25.2 and 23.9 cm for 4th grade, 26.4 and 25.1 cm for 5th grade, and 27.7 and 26.4 cm for 6th grade boys and girls, respectively. The cut-off values of the MUAC are different not only between the sexes, but also increase as age or the specific course increases.

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

4.6
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