RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Adequacy of standards for assessment of growth and nutritional status in infancy and early childhood
JF Archives of Disease in Childhood
JO Arch Dis Child
FD BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health
SP 121
OP 124
DO 10.1136/adc.80.2.121
VO 80
IS 2
A1 Shirley Anne H Savage
A1 John J Reilly
A1 Christine A Edwards
A1 John V G A Durnin
YR 1999
UL http://adc.bmj.com/content/80/2/121.abstract
AB BACKGROUND New “UK 1990” data have been proposed for assessing growth and nutritional status in infancy and childhood. These are still largely untried in clinical practice. There is also doubt about the applicability of more traditional reference data, which are still widely used, in assessing length, weight, skinfold thicknesses, and head circumference. AIMS To determine the suitability of new and traditional reference data for the assessment of growth and nutritional status in infancy and early childhood. METHODS 127 infants were recruited at birth and assessed monthly to 6 months of age then at 9, 12, 18, and 24 months. Length, weight, head circumference, and triceps and subscapular skinfold thicknesses were measured. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated. Measurements were expressed as standard deviation scores relative to “revised UK 1990” data for weight, length, head circumference and BMI; relative to Tanner-Whitehouse data for skinfold thicknesses; and relative to Gairdner-Pearson standards for head circumference. Agreement at the extremes of the distribution was assessed by comparison of observed and expected frequencies above the 90th and below the 10th centile. RESULTS Compared with the revised UK 1990 references small differences were found for weight, length, head circumference, and BMI. Mean head circumference exceeded Gairdner-Pearson standards at all ages. Triceps and subscapular skinfold thicknesses were substantially below Tanner-Whitehouse reference data at all ages and in both sexes. CONCLUSION Biases in revised UK 1990 reference data are small and not clinically important. The new standards are considerably more appropriate than older reference data. Use of older reference data for head circumference and skinfold thicknesses is inappropriate.