↓ Skip to main content

Agreement between Subjective Global Nutritional Assessment and the nutritional assessment of the World Health Organization

Overview of attention for article published in Jornal de Pediatria, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Agreement between Subjective Global Nutritional Assessment and the nutritional assessment of the World Health Organization
Published in
Jornal de Pediatria, November 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.jped.2017.09.007
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fabiana S. Pimenta, Cássia M. Oliveira, Wallisen T. Hattori, Kely R. Teixeira

Abstract

To assess the agreement between the results of the Subjective Global Nutritional Assessment questionnaire, adapted for children and adolescents of the Brazilian population, and the nutritional status assessment method through growth curves and the classification of the World Health Organization in a pediatric hospital service. This was an analytical, quantitative, cross-sectional study. During the data collection period, the nutritional status of all patients from 0 to 12 years of age, admitted to the pediatric unit of a university hospital, was concomitantly assessed according to the Subjective Global Nutritional Assessment and World Health Organization curves. To determine the assessment and agreement between these methods, the Kappa and Kendall coefficients were used, respectively, considering a significance level of 5%. Sixty-one children participated, with a predominance of males. It was observed that the highest frequency of equivalent results occurred among the group classified as well nourished, and that only the height/age variable showed a close agreement between the methods. Additionally, there was a good correlation only for the weight/height variable between the assessment tools used. Due to the low agreement between the methods, the combination of both may be beneficial for the nutritional assessment of pediatric patients, collaborating with the early diagnosis of nutritional alterations and facilitating the use of adequate dietary therapy.

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 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 95 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 16%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 6%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 35 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 40 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 16 November 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Jornal de Pediatria
#743
of 896 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#296,414
of 337,462 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Jornal de Pediatria
#14
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 896 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 337,462 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.