| Literature DB >> 29609446 |
Seung Woo Jeong1, Ja Hyang Cho1, Hae Woon Jung2, Kye Shik Shim1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Predicted adult height (PAH) is often crucial to decision-making about treatment with human growth hormone (GH) or gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist in children with short stature. This study compares final adult height (FAH) with different methods used to determine PAH and assesses the clinical utility and analytical validity of height prediction for children not treated with GH.Entities:
Keywords: Adult height prediction method; Bayley-Pinneau method; Final height; Short stature
Year: 2018 PMID: 29609446 PMCID: PMC5894566 DOI: 10.6065/apem.2018.23.1.28
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Pediatr Endocrinol Metab ISSN: 2287-1012
Basal characteristics of study subjects
| Variable | Male (n=22) | Female (n=22) |
|---|---|---|
| Chronologic age (yr)[ | 10.6±1.2 | 9.6±1.5 |
| Bone age by GP method (yr) | 10.2±1.5 | 9.5±1.6 |
| Height (cm) | 137.2±6.8 | 130.0±8.8 |
| Height-SDS | -0.5±0.6 | -0.8±0.7 |
| Weight-SDS | -0.4±0.9 | -0.7±0.8 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 17.5±3.4 | 16.3±1.8 |
| Midparental height | 170.6±3.0 | 158.6±3.0 |
| Midparental height-SDS | -0.4±0.5 | -0.4±0.6 |
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.
GP, Greulich and Pyle; SDS, standard deviation score.
At the time of prediction.
Predicted adult height, final adult height, and their difference according to various prediction methods
| Variable | Male (n=22) | Female (n=22) |
|---|---|---|
| PAH | ||
| BP method (cm) | 174.7±4.9 | 155.3±3.7 |
| BP method (SDS) | 0.3±0.9 | -1.1±0.8 |
| RWT method (cm) | 173.0±3.9 | 161.5±3.1 |
| RWT method (SDS) | 0.0±0.7 | 0.2±0.6 |
| TW 2 method (cm) | 172.1±4.1 | 159.7±3.5 |
| TW 2 method (SDS) | -0.2±0.7 | -0.2±0.7 |
| NFAH | ||
| Chronologic age (yr)[ | 16.2±1.2 | 15.2±1.5 |
| Bone age by GP method (yr) | 16.5±0.6 | 15.3±1.1 |
| Height (cm) | 167.8±4.7 | 154.9±5.1 |
| Height (SDS) | -1.0±0.9 | -1.2±1.1 |
| Difference between PAH and NFAH | ||
| PAH by BP method – NFAH (cm) | 6.9±4.2 ( | 0.4±3.9 ( |
| PAH by BP method – NFAH (SDS) | 1.2±0.8 ( | 0.1±0.8 ( |
| PAH by RWT method – NFAH (cm) | 5.2±4.1 ( | 6.6±3.6 ( |
| PAH by RWT method – NFAH (SDS) | 0.9±0.8 ( | 1.3±0.7 ( |
| PAH by TW2 method – NFAH (cm) | 4.3±3.7 ( | 4.8±4.4 ( |
| PAH by TW2 method – NFAH (SDS) | 0.8±0.7 ( | 1.0±0.9 ( |
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.
PAH, predicted adult height; BP, Bayley-Pinneau; RWT, Roche-Wainer-Thissen; TW, Tanner-Whitehouse; NFAH, near final adult height; GP, Greulich and Pyle.
Between June 2016 and June 2017.
Correlation between PAH and NFAH by various prediction methods
| Variable | Male (n=22) | Female (n=22) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pearson correlation (R) | Significance ( | Pearson correlation (R) | Significance ( | |
| PAH by BP method and NFAH (cm) | 0.619 | 0.002 | 0.665 | 0.001 |
| PAH by BP method and NFAH (SDS) | 0.621 | 0.002 | 0.664 | 0.001 |
| PAH by RWT method and NFAH (cm) | 0.548 | 0.008 | 0.726 | 0.000 |
| PAH by RWT method and NFAH (SDS) | 0.544 | 0.009 | 0.723 | 0.000 |
| PAH by TW2 method and NFAH (cm) | 0.650 | 0.001 | 0.536 | 0.010 |
| PAH by TW2 method and NFAH (SDS) | 0.649 | 0.001 | 0.534 | 0.010 |
PAH, predicted adult height; NFAH, near final adult height; BP, Bayley-Pinneau; SDS, standard deviation score; RWT, Roche-Wainer-Thissen; TW, Tanner-Whitehouse.
Fig. 1.Difference between predicted by BP method and NFAH in female by Bland-Altman plot. 95% of differences between the PAH and NFAH exist between limits of agreement (mean±1.96 standard deviation [SD]; 8.0 and -7.1 cm). BP, Bayley-Pinneau; NFAH, near final adult height; PAH, predicted adult height.