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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Different equations for determining height among the elderly: the Bambuí cohort study of aging
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cadernos de Saúde Pública, January 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1590/s0102-311x2012000100013 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vanessa de Oliveira Siqueira, Bruna Vieira de Lima Costa, Aline Cristine Souza Lopes, Luana Caroline dos Santos, Maria Fernanda Lima-Costa, Waleska Teixeira Caiaffa |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to compare measured height with estimates of height derived from equations using half arm-span measurements and assess how this affects the calculation of the body mass index (BMI) among elderly individuals. Direct height measurements of a subsample of elderly individuals from the baseline sample of the Bambuí Project were compared with estimates of height derived from equations proposed by Bassey and the WHO. The data was analyzed using the McNemar test, Lin concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and Bland-Altman method (p < 0.05). Estimates of height using the WHO method showed a low CCC in relation to measured height. For BMI, the concordance was greater. However, with this method height was found to be underestimated so leading to the overestimation of BMI. The Bassey equation showed high concordance with measured height in elderly people over 80 years of age. With respect to BMI, the WHO method resulted in a much greater prevalence of overweight, whereas the estimates derived from the Bassey method did not differ from the results obtained from direct height measurement. Height estimates using the Bassey equation were similar to the results obtained from direct measurements, suggesting that this method is applicable. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 16 | 94% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 16 | 94% |
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 01 September 2012.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Cadernos de Saúde Pública
#1,565
of 1,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,370
of 251,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cadernos de Saúde Pública
#16
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 1,855 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. 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 251,408 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 20 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.