Prevalence of overweight in US children: comparison of US growth charts from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with other reference values for body mass index.
Prevalence of overweight in US children: comparison of US growth charts from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with other reference values for body mass index.
复制标题
美国儿童超重患病率：美国疾病控制与预防中心的生长图表与其他体重指数参考值的比较。
DOI：
10.1093/ajcn/73.6.1086
复制
发表时间：
2001
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
C. Johnson
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
K. Flegal;Cynthia L Ogden;R. Wei;Robert L Kuczmarski;C. Johnson
背景
有几组不同的参考体重指数（BMI）值可用于定义儿童超重。
目的
本研究的目的是比较使用3组参考BMI值计算的美国儿童超重患病率：疾病控制和预防中心修订的生长图表（CDC-US生长图表）、科尔等人提出的国际标准和Must等人开发的值。
设计
儿童和青少年的数据来自具有全国代表性的美国横断面调查：全国健康检查调查（1963-1965年和1966-1970年）的第二和第三周期，以及第一、第二和第三次全国健康和营养检查调查：NHANES I（1971-1974年）、II（1976-1980年）和III（1988-1994年）。将科尔等人的参考值（相当于BMI为25）与其他2种方法的第85次测量值进行比较;将相当于BMI为30的参考值与第95次测量值进行比较。
结果
3种方法得到相似但不完全相同的结果。科尔等人的参考值对幼儿的估计值低于CDC-US生长图表，但对大龄儿童的估计值较高。Must等人的参考值在年轻女孩中的患病率比其他2种方法高得多。
结论
方法之间的差异与数据集、平滑方法和理论方法的差异有关。所有3种方法都基于统计标准，并包含任意假设。应谨慎使用这些方法，并意识到可能的局限性。
BACKGROUND
Several different sets of reference body mass index (BMI) values are available to define overweight in children.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to compare the prevalence of overweight in US children calculated with 3 sets of reference BMI values: the revised growth charts of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC-US growth charts), international standards proposed by Cole et al, and values developed by Must et al.
DESIGN
Data for children and adolescents came from cross-sectional nationally representative US surveys: cycles II and III of the National Health Examination Survey (1963-1965 and 1966-1970) and the first, second, and third National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys: NHANES I (1971-1974), II (1976-1980), and III (1988-1994). The reference values of Cole et al equivalent to a BMI of 25 were compared with the 85th percentiles from the other 2 methods; the values equivalent to a BMI of 30 were compared with the 95th percentiles.
RESULTS
The 3 methods gave similar but not identical results. The reference values of Cole et al gave lower estimates than did the CDC-US growth charts for young children but higher estimates for older children. The reference values of Must et al gave much higher prevalences for younger girls than did the other 2 methods.
CONCLUSIONS
Differences between methods were related to differences in data sets, smoothing methods, and theoretical approaches. All 3 methods are based on statistical criteria and incorporate arbitrary assumptions. These methods should be used cautiously, with awareness of the possible limitations.