Cargando…
Implications of adopting the WHO 2006 Child Growth Standard in the UK: two prospective cohort studies
BACKGROUND: The WHO 2006 Child Growth Standard is based on data from international optimally nourished breastfed infants from birth to age 5 years. OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential effect of its use on weight and growth monitoring of UK children. PARTICIPANTS: Full-term members of two population-b...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2008
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2532956/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17908712 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/adc.2007.126854 |
_version_ | 1782159003298562048 |
---|---|
author | Wright, C Lakshman, R Emmett, P Ong, K K |
author_facet | Wright, C Lakshman, R Emmett, P Ong, K K |
author_sort | Wright, C |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The WHO 2006 Child Growth Standard is based on data from international optimally nourished breastfed infants from birth to age 5 years. OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential effect of its use on weight and growth monitoring of UK children. PARTICIPANTS: Full-term members of two population-based UK birth cohorts: the Children in Focus sub-cohort of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) (n = 1335) and the Gateshead Millennium Baby Study (GMS; n = 923). DESIGN: Growth data from birth to 5 years were converted into z-scores relative to the WHO 2006 standard. RESULTS: Compared with the WHO standard, both UK cohorts had higher birth weights (mean z-scores: GMS, 0.17; ALSPAC, 0.34) and ALSPAC had higher birth lengths. After birth, length showed a good fit at all ages. By 2–4 months, both cohorts were similar in weight to the WHO median (mean WHO weight z-score at 4 months: GMS, 0.01; ALSPAC, −0.07), but thereafter the UK cohorts were heavier (mean WHO weight z-score at 12 months: GMS, 0.57; ALSPAC, 0.65). At age 12 months, the risk of being classified as underweight (weight <2nd centile) was considerably lower according to the WHO standard than by the UK 1990 Growth Reference (RR = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.07 to 0.32), and the risk of being classified as obese at 4–5 years (body mass index >98th centile) was slightly increased (RR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.78). CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of the WHO 2006 Growth Charts would set a markedly lower standard of weight gain beyond the age of 4 months for UK infants and could support efforts to avoid future childhood obesity. However, the WHO standard is not representative of size at birth in the UK. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2532956 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2008 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-25329562008-10-24 Implications of adopting the WHO 2006 Child Growth Standard in the UK: two prospective cohort studies Wright, C Lakshman, R Emmett, P Ong, K K Arch Dis Child Original Articles BACKGROUND: The WHO 2006 Child Growth Standard is based on data from international optimally nourished breastfed infants from birth to age 5 years. OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential effect of its use on weight and growth monitoring of UK children. PARTICIPANTS: Full-term members of two population-based UK birth cohorts: the Children in Focus sub-cohort of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) (n = 1335) and the Gateshead Millennium Baby Study (GMS; n = 923). DESIGN: Growth data from birth to 5 years were converted into z-scores relative to the WHO 2006 standard. RESULTS: Compared with the WHO standard, both UK cohorts had higher birth weights (mean z-scores: GMS, 0.17; ALSPAC, 0.34) and ALSPAC had higher birth lengths. After birth, length showed a good fit at all ages. By 2–4 months, both cohorts were similar in weight to the WHO median (mean WHO weight z-score at 4 months: GMS, 0.01; ALSPAC, −0.07), but thereafter the UK cohorts were heavier (mean WHO weight z-score at 12 months: GMS, 0.57; ALSPAC, 0.65). At age 12 months, the risk of being classified as underweight (weight <2nd centile) was considerably lower according to the WHO standard than by the UK 1990 Growth Reference (RR = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.07 to 0.32), and the risk of being classified as obese at 4–5 years (body mass index >98th centile) was slightly increased (RR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.78). CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of the WHO 2006 Growth Charts would set a markedly lower standard of weight gain beyond the age of 4 months for UK infants and could support efforts to avoid future childhood obesity. However, the WHO standard is not representative of size at birth in the UK. BMJ Publishing Group 2008-07 2007-10-01 /pmc/articles/PMC2532956/ /pubmed/17908712 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/adc.2007.126854 Text en © Wright et al 2008 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Wright, C Lakshman, R Emmett, P Ong, K K Implications of adopting the WHO 2006 Child Growth Standard in the UK: two prospective cohort studies |
title | Implications of adopting the WHO 2006 Child Growth Standard in the UK: two prospective cohort studies |
title_full | Implications of adopting the WHO 2006 Child Growth Standard in the UK: two prospective cohort studies |
title_fullStr | Implications of adopting the WHO 2006 Child Growth Standard in the UK: two prospective cohort studies |
title_full_unstemmed | Implications of adopting the WHO 2006 Child Growth Standard in the UK: two prospective cohort studies |
title_short | Implications of adopting the WHO 2006 Child Growth Standard in the UK: two prospective cohort studies |
title_sort | implications of adopting the who 2006 child growth standard in the uk: two prospective cohort studies |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2532956/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17908712 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/adc.2007.126854 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wrightc implicationsofadoptingthewho2006childgrowthstandardintheuktwoprospectivecohortstudies AT lakshmanr implicationsofadoptingthewho2006childgrowthstandardintheuktwoprospectivecohortstudies AT emmettp implicationsofadoptingthewho2006childgrowthstandardintheuktwoprospectivecohortstudies AT ongkk implicationsofadoptingthewho2006childgrowthstandardintheuktwoprospectivecohortstudies |