| Literature DB >> 31382936 |
Ankita Bhattacharya1, Baidyanath Pal2, Shankarashis Mukherjee3, Subrata Kumar Roy4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Undernutrition is a serious health problem and highly prevalent in developing countries. There is no as such confirmatory test to measure undernutrition. The objective of the present study is to determine a new Composite Score using anthropometric measurements. Composite Score was then compared with other methods like body mass index (BMI) and mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) classification, to test the significance of the method.Entities:
Keywords: Anthropometric measurements; Confirmatory factor analysis; Discriminant function analysis; Nutritional status assessment
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31382936 PMCID: PMC6683359 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-019-7372-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Criteria for classification of nutritional status
| Nutritional Category | BMI | MUAC (cm.) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | ||
| Undernutrition | < 18.50 | < 23.00 | < 22.00 |
| Normal | 18.50–24.99 | ≥23.00 | ≥22.00 |
| Obese | ≥25.00 | – | |
Descriptive statistics of age, BMI and selected anthropometric traits in either sex of adult individuals
| Variables | Male ( | Female ( | Total ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | S.D. | Mean | S.D. | Mean | S.D. | |
| Age (yr.) | 35.85 | 14.14 | 35.99 | 13.75 | 35.92 | 13.94 |
| Height (Ht.) (cm.) | 162.05 | 5.26 | 150.50 | 5.17 | 156.23 | 7.78 |
| Weight (Wt.) (kg.) | 50.78 | 7.18 | 42.34 | 7.60 | 46.53 | 8.51 |
| Mid upper arm circumference (MUAC) (cm.) | 23.18 | 3.18 | 21.38 | 4.61 | 22.20 | 3.58 |
| Calf Circumference (CC) (cm.) | 30.02 | 4.21 | 27.42 | 4.13 | 28.71 | 4.37 |
| Chest Circumference, normal (CCN) (cm.) | 81.45 | 7.25 | 71.04 | 6.80 | 76.20 | 8.74 |
| Waist Circumference (WC) (cm.) | 71.15 | 6.78 | 70.18 | 9.26 | 70.66 | 8.14 |
| Hip Circumference (HC) (cm.) | 80.66 | 7.56 | 80.14 | 7.75 | 80.40 | 7.65 |
| Biceps Skinfold (BSK) (mm.) | 3.03 | 1.83 | 4.23 | 3.37 | 3.63 | 2.78 |
| Triceps Skinfold (TSK) (mm.) | 5.28 | 2.43 | 8.37 | 4.36 | 6.84 | 3.85 |
| Calf Skinfold (CSK) (mm.) | 6.15 | 3.86 | 8.99 | 4.51 | 7.58 | 4.43 |
| Sub scapular Skinfold (SBSK) (mm.) | 7.68 | 2.90 | 9.81 | 5.12 | 8.75 | 4.30 |
| Supra iliac Skinfold (SISK) (mm.) | 3.76 | 1.71 | 5.80 | 7.36 | 4.79 | 5.46 |
| Body Mass Index (BMI) | 19.33 | 2.49 | 18.66 | 3.09 | 18.99 | 2.83 |
Factor loadings of Observed variables in Confirmatory factor analysis
| Variables (X) | Coefficients (λi) | Measurement error term (ɛi) |
|---|---|---|
| Height (Ht.) | 1.0 | 54.0 |
| Weight (Wt.) | 2.7 | 20.0 |
| Mid upper arm circumference (MUAC) | 1.1 | 4.3 |
| Calf Circumference (CC) | 1.1 | 11.0 |
| Chest Circumference, normal (CCN) | 2.4 | 35.0 |
| Waist Circumference (WC) | 2.3 | 28.0 |
| Hip Circumference (HC) | 2.2 | 25.0 |
| Biceps Skinfold (BSK) | 0.50 | 6.0 |
| Triceps Skinfold (TSK) | 0.83 | 10.0 |
| Calf Skinfold (CSK) | 0.85 | 15.0 |
| Sub scapular Skinfold (SBSK) | 1.1 | 11.0 |
| Supra iliac Skinfold (SISK) | 0.5 | 28.0 |
Fig. 1Path diagram of the Measurement Model of Confirmatory factor analysis. Describes the path diagram of measurement model of the confirmatory factor analysis. The variance of Composite Score (ξ) was 7.0. The values of the respective factor loadings (λi) were mentioned and the measurement error (ɛi) of the model for each respective observed variable was also calculated as shown
Classification of Nutritional status according to BMI, MUAC and Composite Score
| Variable | Undernutrition | Normal | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male ( |
| Female ( |
| Total ( |
| Male ( |
| Female ( |
| Total ( |
| |||||||
| No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | |||||||
| BMI | 155 | 40.1 | 0.603 | 203 | 51.7 |
| 358 | 45.9 |
| 232 | 59.9 | 0.603 | 190 | 48.3 |
| 422 | 54.1 |
|
| Composite Score | 148 | 38.2 | 256 | 65.1 | 404 | 51.8 | 239 | 61.8 | 137 | 34.9 | 376 | 48.2 | ||||||
| 0.187 | 0.126 | 0.054 | 0.187 | 0.126 | 0.054 | |||||||||||||
| MUAC | 166 | 42.9 | 276 | 70.2 | 442 | 56.7 | 221 | 57.1 | 117 | 29.8 | 338 | 43.3 | ||||||
*z-test for equality of proportions was carried out
Fisher’s classification function coefficients of Discriminant Function Analysis to predict nutritional status
| Classification Categories | Classification | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Undernutrition | Normal | ||
| BMI | Coefficient | 4.802 | 6.030 |
| Constant | −40.753 | −63.862 | |
| MUAC | Coefficient | 3.660 | 4.672 |
| Constant | −36.970 | − 59.798 | |
| Composite Score | Coefficient | −0.741 | 0.799 |
| Constant | −1.395 | −1.507 | |
Classification results of nutritional status with three independent methods
| BMI Categories |
| Total | Overall correctly classified | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Under nutrition | Normal | |||||
|
| Count | Undernutrition | 358 | 0 | 358 | 95.9% |
| Normal | 32 | 390 | 422 | |||
| % | Undernutrition | 100 | 0 | 100.0 | ||
| Normal | 7.6 | 92.4 | 100.0 | |||
| MUAC Categories | ||||||
|
| Count | Under Nutrition | 412 | 30 | 442 | 96.2% |
| Normal | 0 | 338 | 338 | |||
| % | Under Nutrition | 93.2 | 6.8 | 100.0 | ||
| Normal | 0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | |||
| Composite Score | ||||||
|
| Count | Under Nutrition | 405 | 0 | 405 | 98.7% |
| Normal | 10 | 366 | 376 | |||
| % | Under Nutrition | 100.0 | 0 | 100.0 | ||
| Normal | 2.7 | 97.3 | 100.0 | |||