ArticleThe British journal of nutrition2024
Accuracy of the international growth charts to diagnose obesity according to the body composition analysis in US children and adolescents.
Article in The British journal of nutrition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Overweight risk in early adolescence according to children's BMI growth channelling changes in international growth standard/references.Public health nutrition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study verified the accuracy of the international BMI references and the allometric BMI reference to diagnose obesity in children and adolescents from the USA. Data from 17 313 subjects were obtained from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between the years 1999-2006 and 2011-2018. Fat Mass Index, Allometric Fat Mass Index and fat mass/fat-free mass were calculated. Receiver operating characteristic curve, AUC, sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio were estimated to evaluate the accuracy of the growth references for diagnosing obesity. The International Obesity Task Force, MULT BMI 17 years, MULT BMI 18 years and allometric BMI 19 years achieved the best sensitivity-specificity trade-off for boys, with sensitivities ranging from 0·92 to 0·96 and specificities of 0·94, with positive likelihood ratio of 15·51, 16·17, 13·46 and 18·01, respectively. The negative likelihood ratios were notably low, ranging from 0·04 to 0·08. In girls, the International Obesity Task Force, MULT BMI 17 years and MULT allometric BMI 17 years also demonstrated high sensitivity (0·95-0·97) and specificity (0·92), with positive likelihood ratio values of 11·54, 11·82 and 11·77, respectively and low negative likelihood ratio values (0·03-0·05). In summary, these international growth references presented satisfactory performance to diagnose obesity. However, the MULT growth reference performed better, and the MULT allometric BMI was the only indicator capable of detecting that girls have a higher proportion of fat mass than boys for the same index values. These findings suggest that the MULT growth reference may be a better tool to assess the nutritional status of children and adolescents internationally.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.