| Literature DB >> 35059189 |
Mahnon Suria Mokhy1,2, Rosita Jamaluddin1, Abd Rasyid Ismail1, Norhasmah Sulaiman3, Siti Nur 'Asyura Adznam1,4, Intan Hakimah Ismail5, Malina Osman6.
Abstract
Children with cerebral palsy (CP) typically suffer from congenital deformities, such as scoliosis and contractures, therefore, it is a challenge to measure the stature of CP children. Studies have suggested that predictive equations based on tibia length (TL) may be used as an alternative method in measuring the actual height or stature. The present study aimed to develop and validate predictive equations based on TL for CP children in Malaysia across all five levels of gross motor functions (GMFCS I to V) through a cross-sectional study. All subjects were recruited from Hospitals and Community-Based Rehabilitation (CBR) in the central and southern regions of Malaysia. Two predictive equation models were developed using multiple linear regression. For Model 1, the predictive equation was developed based on TL. On the other hand, Model 2 was developed based on TL with age was included. A flexible Seca measuring tape was used to measure the stature and TL. CP children aged 2-18 years were classified into the equation development group (EDG), n 177 and the validation group (VG), n 139. Model 1, Height = 32⋅3 + 3⋅14 (TL), demonstrated a strong correlation with the actual height (R 2 0⋅834), small SEE (1⋅42), and high intra correlation coefficient (0⋅929). The findings suggested that Model 1 was more accurate in estimating the height of CP children aged 2-18 years. This model was shown to suit the Malaysian population and applicable across all GMFCS levels.Entities:
Keywords: Actual height; Cerebral palsy; Estimated height; Predictive equation; Tibia length
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 35059189 PMCID: PMC8727707 DOI: 10.1017/jns.2021.101
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Nutr Sci ISSN: 2048-6790
Demographic data showing gender, race and GMFCS level of the participants
| Variables | All Subjects (EDG and VG) ( | EDG ( | VG ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | |||
| Male | 179 (56⋅6) | 99 (55⋅9) | 80 (57⋅6) |
| Female | 137 (43⋅4) | 78 (44⋅1) | 59 (42⋅4) |
| Race | |||
| Malay | 244 (77⋅2) | 114 (64⋅4) | 130 (93⋅5) |
| Chinese | 47 (14⋅9) | 39 (22⋅0) | 8 (5⋅8) |
| Indian | 25 (7⋅9) | 24 (13⋅6) | 1 (0⋅7) |
| GMFCS level | |||
| Level I | 57 (18⋅0) | 42 (23⋅7) | 15 (10⋅8) |
| Level II | 48 (15⋅2) | 25 (14⋅1) | 23 (16⋅5) |
| Level III | 24 (7⋅6) | 10 (5⋅6) | 14 (10⋅1) |
| Level IV | 24 (7⋅6) | 10 (5⋅6) | 14 (10⋅1) |
| Level V | 163 (51⋅6) | 90 (50⋅8) | 73 (52⋅5) |
EDG, equation developing group; GMFCS, gross motor function; VG, validating group.
Age, height and TL of the participants
| Variables | All Subjects ( | EDG ( | VG ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age in years | 8⋅8 (4⋅19) | 8⋅9 (4⋅08) | 8⋅7 (4⋅35) | 0⋅565 | 0⋅570 |
| Actual Height | 115⋅6 (19⋅83) | 116⋅8 (20⋅39) | 114⋅2 (19⋅08) | 1⋅141 | 0⋅250 |
| TL | 26⋅2 (5⋅74) | 26⋅9 (5⋅93) | 25⋅3 (5⋅36) | 2⋅625 | 0⋅009 |
EDG, equation developing group; TL, tibia length; VG, validating group.
Significant at P < 0⋅05.
The correlation between TL, age and actual height
| Relationship | ||
|---|---|---|
| TL and actual height | 0⋅91 | <0⋅001 |
| Age and actual height | 0⋅83 | <0⋅001 |
| Age and TL | 0⋅81 | <0⋅001 |
TL, tibia length.
Mean estimated height, R2 and SEE of the VG group calculated using Model 1 and Model 2 equations
| Parameter ( | SEE | Estimated height ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 95 % CI of mean | ||||||
| Mean | Lower | Upper | ||||
| Actual Height | 114 | 19⋅08 | ||||
| Model 1: TL | 0⋅834 | 1⋅42 | 112 | 16⋅81 | 109 | 114 |
| Model 2: TL and A | 0⋅859 | 1⋅44 | 94* | 17⋅05 | 91 | 97 |
A, age; SEE, standard error of the estimate; TL, tibia length.
Fig. 1.The regression equation describing the relationship between actual height and tibial length for CP children aged 2–18 years.
Power of validation of the equations
| Equation model | Mean difference | 95 % CI of mean difference | ICC | 95 % CI of ICC | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | Lower | Upper | |||||
| Model 1 | 2⋅60 | 0⋅570 | 1⋅460 | 3⋅740 | 0⋅94 | 0⋅929 | 0⋅902 | 0⋅949 |
| Model 2 | 20⋅23 | 0⋅627 | 18⋅99 | 21⋅47 | 0⋅92 | 0⋅560 | -0⋅053 | 0⋅855 |
ICC, intraclass correlation coefficient; r, Pearson's correlation coefficient.