AIM: It was the aim of this study to evaluate adult height (AH) and different methods used for estimation of target height (TH) in children with idiopathic short stature (ISS). METHODS: Eighty-five ISS children (36 female, 49 male) were followed until AH was evaluated retrospectively. TH was calculated according to the following 4 methods: (1) as +/-6.5 cm to the mean parental heights for boys or girls, respectively, (2) as the mean standard deviation score (SDS) of the parents' heights, (3) as the sum of the SDS of the parents' heights divided by 1.61, and (4) as the mean SDS of the parents' heights multiplied by 0.72. ISS was classified as familial short stature (FSS) if the height was within the TH range and as nonfamilial short stature (NFSS) if it was below the TH range. RESULTS: The number of FSS and NFSS children differed by the method chosen. The mean AH SDS was lower than the TH SDS in FSS in all methods, except in method 3. NFSS children did not attain their TH in either of the methods. CONCLUSIONS: Classification of ISS depends on the method of the TH range chosen. ISS children reach a mean AH SDS lower than the mean TH SDS. Only FSS children classified by method 3 reached a mean AH SDS close to the mean TH SDS. Copyright 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel.
AIM: It was the aim of this study to evaluate adult height (AH) and different methods used for estimation of target height (TH) in children with idiopathic short stature (ISS). METHODS: Eighty-five ISS children (36 female, 49 male) were followed until AH was evaluated retrospectively. TH was calculated according to the following 4 methods: (1) as +/-6.5 cm to the mean parental heights for boys or girls, respectively, (2) as the mean standard deviation score (SDS) of the parents' heights, (3) as the sum of the SDS of the parents' heights divided by 1.61, and (4) as the mean SDS of the parents' heights multiplied by 0.72. ISS was classified as familial short stature (FSS) if the height was within the TH range and as nonfamilial short stature (NFSS) if it was below the TH range. RESULTS: The number of FSS and NFSS children differed by the method chosen. The mean AH SDS was lower than the TH SDS in FSS in all methods, except in method 3. NFSS children did not attain their TH in either of the methods. CONCLUSIONS: Classification of ISS depends on the method of the TH range chosen. ISS children reach a mean AH SDS lower than the mean TH SDS. Only FSSchildren classified by method 3 reached a mean AH SDS close to the mean TH SDS. Copyright 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel.