ArticleThe American journal of clinical nutrition2012
Effects of trimming weight-for-height data on growth-chart percentiles.
Article in The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- BMI-for-age percentile curves for older adults.Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.) · 2025Article
- Weight Changes in Black and White Women Receiving Chemotherapy Treatment for Breast Cancer.Journal of clinical oncology and research · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBefore estimating smoothed percentiles of weight-for-height and BMI-for-age to construct the WHO growth charts, WHO excluded observations that were considered to represent unhealthy weights for height.
objectiveThe objective was to estimate the effects of similar data trimming on empirical percentiles from the CDC growth-chart data set relative to the smoothed WHO percentiles for ages 24-59 mo.
designWe used the nationally representative US weight and height data from 1971 to 1994, which was the source data for the 2000 CDC growth charts. Trimming cutoffs were calculated on the basis of weight-for-height for 9722 children aged 24-71 mo. Empirical percentiles for 7315 children aged 24-59 mo were compared with the corresponding smoothed WHO percentiles.
resultsBefore trimming, the mean empirical percentiles for weight-for-height in the CDC data set were higher than the corresponding smoothed WHO percentiles. After trimming, the mean empirical 95th and 97th percentiles of weight-for-height were lower than the WHO percentiles, and the proportion of children in the CDC data set above the WHO 95th percentile decreased from 7% to 5%. The findings were similar for BMI-for-age. However, for weight-for-age, which had not been trimmed by the WHO, the empirical percentiles before trimming agreed closely with the upper percentiles from the WHO charts.
conclusionWHO data-trimming procedures may account for some of the differences between the WHO growth charts and the 2000 CDC growth charts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.