↓ Skip to main content

Misclassification of child body mass index from cut-points defined by rounded percentiles instead of Z-scores

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 Mendeley
Title
Misclassification of child body mass index from cut-points defined by rounded percentiles instead of Z-scores
Published in
BMC Research Notes, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13104-017-2983-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura N. Anderson, Sarah Carsley, Gerald Lebovic, Cornelia M. Borkhoff, Jonathon L. Maguire, Patricia C. Parkin, Catherine S. Birken

Abstract

To evaluate the misclassification resulting from the use of body mass index (BMI) cut-points defined by rounded percentiles instead of Z-scores in early childhood. Using data from the TARGet Kids primary care network we conducted a cross-sectional study among 5836 children < 6 years of age. The World Health Organization growth standards were used to calculate BMI-for-age Z-scores. BMI Z-score cut-points of < - 2.0, > 1.0, > 2.0, > 3.0 are recommended to define wasted, at risk of overweight, overweight and obese. However, rounded percentiles of the 3rd, 85th, 97th, and 99.9th are commonly used. Misclassification was calculated comparing the frequency distributions for BMI categories defined by rounded percentiles and Z-score cut-points. Using rounded percentiles, the proportion of children who were wasted, at risk of overweight, overweight, and obese was 4.2, 12.5, 4.3 and 0.8%, whereas the distribution using Z-scores was: 3.6, 13.8, 3.4 and 1.0%, respectively. Overall, 117 (2%) children were misclassified when using percentiles instead of Z-scores; however, 13% (33/245) of children who were wasted and 14% (8/57) of children who were obese were misclassified. Misclassification of child growth results from the use of cut-points defined by rounded percentiles instead of Z-scores and limits comparability between studies. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01869530 June 5, 2013.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 110 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Researcher 7 6%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Other 23 21%
Unknown 33 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Computer Science 3 3%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 46 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 March 2021.
All research outputs
#1,886,062
of 23,009,818 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#230
of 4,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,141
of 438,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#12
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,009,818 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,284 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 438,547 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.