Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24791970›Full record

ReviewIrish journal of medical science2015

Methodologies to assess paediatric adiposity.

M Horan, E Gibney, E Molloy, F McAuliffe

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Irish journal of medical science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Childhood obesity: The threatening apprentice of the adiposity empire.Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

M HoranUniversity College Dublin Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine and Medical Science, National Maternity Hospital, Dublin 2, Republic of Ireland, mary.horan@ucdconnect.ie.
E Gibney
E Molloy
F McAuliffe
University College Dublin · IENational Maternity Hospital · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionChildhood obesity is associated with increased risk of adult obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer. Appropriate techniques for assessment of childhood adiposity are required to identify children at risk. The aim of this review was to examine core clinical measurements and more technical tools to assess paediatric adiposity.

methodsThe online databases PubMed, CINALH and EMBASE were searched and the abstracts identified were reviewed to determine appropriate studies. Their reference lists were also searched to identify further eligible studies. Publications were included if they described childhood measurement techniques or involved validation. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: There are many body composition assessment tools available, none of which are direct. Each technique has limitations and a combination of methods may be used. The main clinical techniques are weight, height, body mass index (BMI) and circumferences which provide sufficient information to enable classification of overweight or obesity when growth centile charts and ratios are employed. Further investigation depends on resources available and examiner skill. Skinfold thicknesses are cost-effective but require technical training and only measure subcutaneous fat. Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA), air displacement plethysmography (ADP), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) are more costly and intensive, requiring the child to remain still for longer periods. DEXA and ADP are capable of accurately measuring adiposity but are unable to distinguish between fat depots. MRI and CT can distinguish intra-abdominal from subcutaneous adiposity and are considered gold standards, but CT is unsuitable for adiposity measurement in children due to high levels of radiation exposure. Ultrasound is a promising technique capable of measuring intra-abdominal adiposity in children but requires further validation.

conclusionThe core clinical measurements of weight, height, BMI and circumferences are sufficient to enable diagnosis of paediatric overweight and obesity while more technical tools provide further insight.

Indexed as

Body Mass IndexAbsorptiometry, PhotonAdiposityAdultBody CompositionBody WeightChildHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingObesitySkinfold ThicknessTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID24791970
OpenAlexW2083016594

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.