4.6 Article

Population-based centile curves for triceps, subscapular, and abdominal skinfold thicknesses in Polish children and adolescents-the OLAF study

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 171, 期 8, 页码 1215-1221

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00431-012-1717-5

关键词

Triceps; Subscapular; Abdominal skinfold thickness; Population-based values; Children; Polish

资金

  1. Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway through the EEA Financial Mechanism
  2. Norwegian Financial Mechanism
  3. Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Poland [PL0080]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Skinfold thicknesses are used as valid anthropometric indicators of regional body fatness. Actual population-based values for skinfold thicknesses for Polish children are not available. The purpose of this study was to provide population-based values for triceps, subscapular, and abdominal skinfold thicknesses in healthy children and adolescents. A total number of 17,416 boys and girls aged 6.5-18.5 years, randomly selected from whole Polish population of children and adolescents, were enrolled in the study. Skinfold thicknesses (triceps, subscapular, and abdominal) were measured using Harpenden skinfold caliper. All measurements were taken after the training of participating investigators. The LMS method was used to fit percentile curves across age for each skinfold. Q tests for fit were used to assess the global goodness of fit of our final models. The study shows for the first time smoothed population-based values of body fat distribution indices for Polish children and adolescents 7-18 years of age. Reported skinfold centiles are higher compared to previously established for Warsaw children and very close to the actual US data. Conclusion Our study provided for the first time population-based values for skinfold thicknesses evaluation in a way allowing to calculate reliable Z scores. The early detection of abnormal fat stores, using our population-based values and respective Z scores, may be now implemented for practice.

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

4.6
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