| Title |
Measurement and Definitions of Obesity In Childhood and Adolescence: A field guide for the uninitiated
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nutrition Journal, October 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1475-2891-6-32 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Helen N Sweeting |
| Abstract |
This paper aims to guide readers embarking on the complex literature in respect of childhood and adolescent obesity. It opens with a discussion of definitions of 'obesity' based on overall fat levels and the significance of fat distribution. This is followed by simple descriptions of the various techniques used to measure fat, including density-based, scanning, bioelectrical impedance and anthropometric methods. The paper then turns to 'overweight' and the measurement of weight in relation to height, particularly via body mass index (BMI). While it is a relatively simple measure and a valuable tool, BMI has several disadvantages, which are described. These include a lack of consensus on which values should be used to define 'overweight' or 'obese', with the result that the literature contains a confusing multiplicity of child and adolescent obesity rates. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 327 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | <1% |
| Portugal | 2 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 2 | <1% |
| Unknown | 313 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 60 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 50 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 32 | 10% |
| Researcher | 24 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 24 | 7% |
| Other | 66 | 20% |
| Unknown | 71 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 102 | 31% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 31 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 30 | 9% |
| Psychology | 15 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 13 | 4% |
| Other | 55 | 17% |
| Unknown | 81 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 29 May 2022.
All research outputs
#2,041,046
of 22,780,967 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#491
of 1,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,807
of 76,285 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#8
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,780,967 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 1,426 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 76,285 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.