Cara L Eckhardt1, Heather Eng2, John L Dills2, Katherine L Wisner3. 1. a School of Community Health, Portland State University , Portland , OR 97201 , USA . 2. b Department of Epidemiology , Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh , Pittsburgh , PA 15261 , USA , and. 3. c Departments of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, and Obstetrics and Gynecology , Asher Center for the Study and Treatment of Depressive Disorder, Northwestern University , Chicago , IL 60611 , USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infant rapid weight gain (RWG) may predict subsequent obesity, but there are inconsistencies in the growth references and age intervals used for assessment. METHODS: This study evaluated whether the prevalence of RWG (an increase of >0.67 in weight-for-age z-score) differed by growth reference (2006 WHO standards vs 2000 CDC references) and age interval of assessment (0-3, 0-6, 6-12 and 0-12 months). Pooled data from singleton term infants from two observational studies on maternal mood disorders during pregnancy were used (n = 161). Differences in RWG prevalence by growth reference and age interval were tested using Cochran's Q and McNemar's tests. RESULTS: The CDC reference produced a higher RWG prevalence (14% of infants additionally categorized as RWG, p < 0.0001) within the 0-3 month age interval compared to the WHO standards; this pattern was reversed for the 6-12 and 0-12 month intervals. RWG prevalence did not differ across age interval within the WHO standards, but did differ with the CDC references (range: 22% for 0-3 months to 4.2% for 6-12 months, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Caution is advised when comparing studies with different criteria for RWG. Future studies should use the 2006 WHO standards and a consistent age interval of evaluation.
BACKGROUND:Infant rapid weight gain (RWG) may predict subsequent obesity, but there are inconsistencies in the growth references and age intervals used for assessment. METHODS: This study evaluated whether the prevalence of RWG (an increase of >0.67 in weight-for-age z-score) differed by growth reference (2006 WHO standards vs 2000 CDC references) and age interval of assessment (0-3, 0-6, 6-12 and 0-12 months). Pooled data from singleton term infants from two observational studies on maternal mood disorders during pregnancy were used (n = 161). Differences in RWG prevalence by growth reference and age interval were tested using Cochran's Q and McNemar's tests. RESULTS: The CDC reference produced a higher RWG prevalence (14% of infants additionally categorized as RWG, p < 0.0001) within the 0-3 month age interval compared to the WHO standards; this pattern was reversed for the 6-12 and 0-12 month intervals. RWG prevalence did not differ across age interval within the WHO standards, but did differ with the CDC references (range: 22% for 0-3 months to 4.2% for 6-12 months, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Caution is advised when comparing studies with different criteria for RWG. Future studies should use the 2006 WHO standards and a consistent age interval of evaluation.
Entities:
Keywords:
Growth references; infant growth; rapid weight gain
Authors: Sheryl L Rifas-Shiman; Matthew W Gillman; Emily Oken; Ken Kleinman; Elsie M Taveras Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2011-12-08 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Matthew W Gillman; Janet W Rich-Edwards; Susanna Huh; Joseph A Majzoub; Emily Oken; Elsie M Taveras; Sheryl L Rifas-Shiman Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Nicolas Stettler; Shiriki K Kumanyika; Solomon H Katz; Babette S Zemel; Virginia A Stallings Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 7.045