Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25824183›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2015

Child obesity cut-offs as derived from parental perceptions: cross-sectional questionnaire.

James A Black, MinHae Park, John Gregson, Catherine L Falconer, Billy White, Anthony S Kessel, Sonia Saxena, Russell M Viner, Sanjay Kinra

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Parental optimism about childhood obesity-related disease risks.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2017
    Article
  17. Overweight but unseen: a review of the underestimation of weight status and a visual normalization theory.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2017
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

James A BlackDepartment of Non-communicable Disease Epidemiology;
MinHae ParkDepartment of Non-communicable Disease Epidemiology;
John GregsonDepartment of Non-communicable Disease Epidemiology;
Catherine L FalconerSchool of Oral and Dental Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol.
Billy WhiteDepartment of General and Adolescent Paediatrics, Institute of Child Health, University College London, London.
Anthony S KesselFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London.
Sonia SaxenaDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London.
Russell M VinerDepartment of General and Adolescent Paediatrics, Institute of Child Health, University College London, London.
Sanjay KinraDepartment of Non-communicable Disease Epidemiology;

Funding

Department of Health CDF-2011-04-048Department of Health RP-PG-0608-10035
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOverweight children are at an increased risk of premature mortality and disease in adulthood. Parental perceptions and clinical definitions of child obesity differ, which may lessen the effectiveness of interventions to address obesity in the home setting. The extent to which parental and objective weight status cut-offs diverge has not been documented.

aimTo compare parental perceived and objectively derived assessment of underweight, healthy weight, and overweight in English children, and to identify sociodemographic characteristics that predict parental under- or overestimation of a child's weight status. DESIGN AND

settingCross-sectional questionnaire completed by parents linked with objective measurement of height and weight by school nurses, in English children from five regions aged 4-5 and 10-11 years old.

methodParental derived cut-offs for under- and overweight were derived from a multinomial model of parental classification of their own child's weight status against school nurse measured body mass index (BMI) centile.

resultsMeasured BMI centile was matched with parent classification of weight status in 2976 children. Parents become more likely to classify their children as underweight when they are at the 0.8th centile or below, and overweight at the 99.7th centile or above. Parents were more likely to underestimate a child's weight if the child was black or South Asian, male, more deprived, or the child was older. These values differ greatly from the BMI centile cut-offs for underweight (2nd centile) and overweight (85th).

conclusionClinical and parental classifications of obesity are divergent at extremes of the weight spectrum.

Indexed as

Pediatric ObesityBody Mass IndexChildChild, PreschoolCross-Sectional StudiesDemographyEnglandFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth SurveysHumansMaleParentsSchool Health ServicesSocial PerceptionSocioeconomic Factorsbody mass indexchildcross-sectional studiesfemalehumansmaleobesityparentspreschoolprimary care

Identifiers

PMID25824183
PMCPMC4377621

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.