4.2 Article

Body mass index for predicting hyperglycemia and serum lipid changes in Brazilian adolescents

期刊

REVISTA DE SAUDE PUBLICA
卷 43, 期 1, 页码 44-52

出版社

REVISTA DE SAUDE PUBLICA
DOI: 10.1590/S0034-89102008005000062

关键词

Adolescent; Body Mass Index; Risk Factors; Sensitivity and Specificity; Hyperglycemia; Hyperlipidemias; Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq) [474620/2003-4]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: To determine the best cut-offs of body mass index for identifying alterations of blood lipids and glucose in adolescents. METHODS: A probabilistic sample including 577 adolescent students aged 12-19 years in 2003 (210 males and 367 females) from state public schools in the city of Niteroi, Southeastern Brazil, was studied. The Receiver Operating Characteristic curve was used to identify the best age-adjusted BMI cut-off for predicting high levels of serum total cholesterol (>= 150mg/dL), LDL-C (>= 100mg/dL), serum triglycerides (>= 100mg/dL), plasma glucose (> 100mg/dL) and low levels of HDL-C (< 45mg/dL). Four references were used to calculate sensitivity and specificity of BMI cut-offs: one Brazilian, one international and two American. RESULTS: The most prevalent metabolic alterations (> 50%) were: high total cholesterol and low HDL-C. BMI predicted high levels of triglycerides in males, high LDL-C in females, and high total cholesterol and the occurrence of three or more metabolic alterations in both males and females (areas under the curve range: 0.59 to 0.67), with low sensitivity (57%-66%) and low specificity (58%-66%). The best BMI cut-offs for this sample (20.3 kg/m(2) to 21.0 kg/m(2)) were lower than those proposed in the references studied. CONCLUSIONS: Although BMI values lower than the International cutoffs were better predictor of some metabolic abnormalities in Brazilian adolescents, overall BMI is not a good predictor of these abnormalities in this population.

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

4.2
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