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

Citation
Km. Flegal et al., 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, AM J CLIN N, 73(6), 2001, pp. 1086-1093
Citations number
14
Language
INGLESE
art.tipo
Article
Categorie Soggetti
Endocrynology, Metabolism & Nutrition","Endocrinology, Nutrition & Metabolism
Journal title
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
ISSN journal
0002-9165 → ACNP
Volume
73
Issue
6
Year of publication
2001
Pages
1086 - 1093
Database
ISI
SICI code
0002-9165(200106)73:6<1086:POOIUC>2.0.ZU;2-3
Abstract
Background: Several different sets of reference body mass index (BMI) value s are available to define overweight in children. Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the prevalence of ove rweight in US children calculated with 3 sets of reference BMI values: the revised growth charts of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CD C-US growth charts), international standards proposed by Cole et al, and va lues developed by Must et al. Design: Data for children and adolescents came from cross-sectional nationa lly representative US surveys: cycles II and III of the National Health Exa mination 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 equiv alent 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 95t h percentiles. Results: The 3 methods gave similar but not identical results. The referenc e values of Cole et al gave lower estimates than did the CDC-US growth char ts for young children but higher estimates for older children. The referenc e 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 dat a sets, smoothing methods, and theoretical approaches. All 3 methods are ba sed on statistical criteria and incorporate arbitrary assumptions. These me thods should be used cautiously, with awareness of the possible limitations .