42
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Validação do peso e altura referidos para o diagnóstico do estado nutricional em uma população de adultos no Sul do Brasil

      Cadernos de saúde pública
      Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública Sergio Arouca, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz
      Body Mass Index, Nutritional Status, Bias (Epidemiology), Índice de Massa Corporal, Estado Nutricional, Viés (Epidemiologia)

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Analisou-se a validade do Índice de Massa Corporal (IMC), calculado por intermédio do peso e altura auto-referidos, para predizer o estado nutricional de adultos. Valendo-se de um estudo transversal de base populacional que inclui 3.934 indivíduos maiores de vinte anos em Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil, foi sorteada uma subamostra de 140 indivíduos para mensuração de peso e altura. A concordância e a validade do peso referido mostrou-se melhor do que a altura referida. Comparando-se os IMC medido e referido calculou-se o erro médio e identificaram-se os fatores associados a esse erro. O IMC "referido" é subestimado por mulheres, independentemente de seu estado nutricional; entre os homens, esse dado mostrou-se confiável. Em mulheres, idade e renda familiar mostraram-se associadas à subestimativa de IMC após análise multivariada. A utilização do IMC "referido" para predizer o estado nutricional de adultos pode resultar em subestimativa da prevalência de obesidade e superestimativa do sobrepeso em mulheres. O IMC "corrigido" calculado pela equação de regressão linear minimiza esse tipo de viés e torna os dados válidos. Outra opção é usar o peso informado com a altura medida para o cálculo do IMC.

          Related collections

          Most cited references12

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference against standard method is misleading

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Comparison of self-reported and measured height and weight.

            Screening data from the Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Program in Minneapolis, MN, 1973-1974, provided an opportunity to evaluate the accuracy of self-report of height and weight. It was found that both were reported, on the average, with small but systematic errors. Large errors were found in certain population subgroups. Also, men and women differed somewhat in their pattern of misreporting. Weight was understated by 1.6% by men and 3.1% by women, whereas height was overstated by 1.3% by men and 0.6% by women. As in previous studies, it was found that the most important correlates of the amount of error were the actual measurements of height and weight. An interesting finding was that misreporting of both height and weight in men was correlated with both aspects of body size, whereas for women, it was related mainly to the characteristic in question. Certain other demographic variables, such as age and educational level, were also found to have some importance as factors influencing misreporting.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Obesidade

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                S0102-311X2005000100026
                10.1590/s0102-311x2005000100026
                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                Public health
                Body Mass Index,Nutritional Status,Bias (Epidemiology),Índice de Massa Corporal,Estado Nutricional,Viés (Epidemiologia)

                Comments

                Comment on this article