4.5 Article

Standard deviation of anthropometric Z-scores as a data quality assessment tool using the 2006 WHO growth standards:: a cross country analysis

期刊

BULLETIN OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
卷 85, 期 6, 页码 441-448

出版社

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
DOI: 10.2471/BLT.06.034421

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Height- and weight-based anthropometric indicators are used worldwide to characterize the nutritional status of populations. Based on the 1978 WHO/National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) growth reference, the World Health Organization has previously indicated that the standard deviation (SD) of Z-scores of these indicators is relatively constant across populations, irrespective of nutritional status. As such, the SD of Z-scores can be used as quality indicators for anthropometric data. In 2006, WHO published new growth standards. Here, we aim to assess whether the SD of height- and weight-based Z-score indicators from the 2006 WHO growth standards can still be used to assess data quality. Methods We examined data on children aged 0-59 months from 51 Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) in 34 developing countries. We used 2006 growth standards to assign height-for-age Z-scores (HAZ), weight-for-age Z-scores (WAZ), weight-for-height Z-scores (WHZ) and body-mass-index-for-age Z-scores (BMIZ). We also did a stratified analysis by age group. Findings The SD for all four indicators were independent of their respective mean Z-scores across countries. Overall, the 5th and 95th percentiles of the SD were 1.3 5 and 1.95 for HAZ, 1. 17 and 1.46 for WAZ, 1.08 and 1. 50 for WHZ and 1.08 and 1. 55 for BMIZ. Conclusion Our results concur with the WHO assertion that SD is in a relatively small range for each indicator irrespective of where the Z-score mean lies, and support the use of SD as a quality indicator for anthropometric data. However, the ranges of SDs for all four indicators analysed were consistently wider than those published previously by WHO.

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