25
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Evaluation accuracy of different BMI screening standards for obesity

      research-article
      1 , 1 ,
      Chinese Journal of School Health
      Chinese Journal of School Health
      Boss mass index, Reference standards, Obesity, Students

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          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

          Objective To analyze the accuracy of different BMI obesity screening criteria in discriminating the obesity of college students, and to provide a reference for formulation scientific and reasonable grouth and development evaluation criteria for students.

          Methods The bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) was used to measure BF of 1 977 non-sports-major-students. Based on WHO “golden standard” of BF% (BF>25% for male and BF >35% for female) for obesity, the accuracy, reliability, and benefits of different BMI screening standards for obesity were evaluated.

          Results The obesity rate was 11.6% according to the BF% standard, and was 2.0% and 8.2% based on BMI ≥28 kg/m 2 and BMI ≥25 kg/m 2, respectively; A higher specificity (0.999, 0. 966) and a low sensitivity (0.175, 0.450) were noticed when BMI ≥28 kg/m 2 and BMI ≥25 kg/m 2 was used as screening standard for obesity, especially among female (0.063, 0.304); The reliability evaluation of consistency with “gold standard” of BMI ≥25 kg/m 2 was higher than BMI ≥25 kg/m 2; when BMI ≥28 kg/m 2 was used as screening standard for obesity, the positive predictive value was higher than negative predictive value, BMI ≥25 kg/m 2 was on the contrary.

          Conclusion BMI cannot adequately reflect body fat content of college students, especially for female; The standard for obesity diagnosis should be based on gender.

          Abstract

          【摘要】目的分析不同体质量指数(body mass index,BMI)肥胖筛査标准判别大学生肥胖的准确性,为制定科学合 理的学生生长发育评判标准提供参考。 方法采用生物阻抗法(bioelectricalimpedanceanalysis,BIA)对北京体育大学非体 育专业1 977名大学生(男生1 320名,女生657名)进行体脂测定。以WHO推荐的体脂率肥胖判定标准(男>25%,女> 35%)作为“金标准”,分别对不同BMI筛査标准的真实性、可靠性、收益等进行评价。 结果以体脂率判定标准检出的肥 胖率为11.6%;分别以BMI ≥28 kg/m 2,BMI ≥25 kg/m 2为肥胖判定标准时,肥胖检出率分别为2.0%,8.2%;BMI ≥28 kg/m 2,BMI ≥25 kg/m 2作为大学生肥胖筛査标准的真实性评价结果为特异度髙(0.999和0.966)、灵敏度过低(0.175和 0.450),尤其是女生(0.063和0.304);尺印斤分析表明,BMI ≥25 kg/m 2与体脂率“金标准”一致性比BMI ≥28 kg/m 2髙,分 别为0.477和0.269;BMI ≥28 kg/m 2阳性预测率比阴性预测率髙,BMI ≥25 kg/m 2阴性预测率比阳性预测率髙。 结论 BMI不能客观反映大学生的体脂含量,尤其对女大学生;建议分性别制定BMI肥胖判定标准。

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          CJSH
          Chinese Journal of School Health
          Chinese Journal of School Health (China )
          1000-9817
          01 March 2020
          01 January 2020
          : 40
          : 3
          : 423-425
          Affiliations
          [1] 1School of sport science, Beijing Sport University, Beijing (100084), China
          Author notes
          *Corresponding author: LI Hongjuan, E-mail: janerabin@ 123456126.com
          Article
          j.cnki.1000-9817.2019.03.029
          10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2019.03.029
          3c73cfc1-6eca-408b-ae7f-70881bb127b3
          © 2019 Chinese Journal of School Health

          This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

          Product
          Self URI (journal-page): http://www.cjsh.org.cn
          Categories
          Journal Article

          Ophthalmology & Optometry,Pediatrics,Nutrition & Dietetics,Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry,Public health
          Boss mass index,Obesity,Reference standards,Students

          Comments

          Comment on this article