Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27737667›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2016

How has child growth around adiposity rebound altered in Scotland since 1990 and what are the risk factors for weight gain using the Growing Up in Scotland birth cohort 1?

Lawrence Doi, Andrew James Williams, John Frank

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Childhood obesity: a challenge for primary care teams.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018
    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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lawrence DoiScottish Collaboration for Public Health Research and Policy, Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, 20 West Richmond Street, Edinburgh, EH8 9DX, UK. larry.doi@ed.ac.uk.
Andrew James WilliamsScottish Collaboration for Public Health Research and Policy, Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, 20 West Richmond Street, Edinburgh, EH8 9DX, UK.
John FrankScottish Collaboration for Public Health Research and Policy, Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, 20 West Richmond Street, Edinburgh, EH8 9DX, UK.
Farr Institute · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GBUniversity of Exeter · GB

Funding

Arthritis Research UKBritish Heart FoundationCancer Research UKChief Scientist OfficeMedical Research Council MR/K007017/1Medical Research Council MR/K023209/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdiposity rebound is considered critical to the development of overweight and obesity. The purpose of this study was to investigate how growth has changed in comparison to the UK 1990 BMI growth reference curves between the ages 4-8 years and identify any marked deviations in growth. We also examined potential maternal and child risk/protective factors associated with the altered growth patterns.

methodsWe used data from birth cohort 1 of the Growing Up in Scotland study. Height and weight data (N = 2 857) were available when the children were aged approximately 4 (sweep 4), 6 (sweep 6) and 8 years (sweep 7). For each child, percentile change per month was calculated to identify deviations from the UK 1990 growth patterns. Marked changes (>10 % annual change) in percentiles or weight category between each sweep for each child were considered as reflecting a decreasing (leptogenic), increasing (obesogenic) or no change pattern. Logistic regression was used to explore which maternal or child risk factors were associated with belonging to the different growth patterns.

resultsSixty six percent (66 %) of the cohort did not show marked changes in BMI percentile and growth compared to the UK 1990 reference population. However, the median BMI percentile of this group was around the 70th. The most common deviation in BMI percentile was early decrease (11.5 %). In terms of weight categories, contemporary maternal obesity (odd ratio (OR) =2.89; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 2.09, 3.98) and mother smoking during pregnancy (OR =1.56; 95 % CI 1.13, 2.15) were found to be significantly associated with increased odds of obesogenic growth trajectory relative to no change trajectory. Breastfeeding (OR = 1.18; 95 % CI 0.88, 1.57) was also associated with increased odds of obesogenic growth but this was not significant in the adjusted model.

conclusionsThis study has shown that there is a substantial shift in the general population distribution of BMI since 1990. We identified maternal weight status as the strongest obesogenic factor and this is an indication that more innovative obesity preventive strategies should also consider intergenerational approaches.

Indexed as

AdiposityWeight GainAdolescentBody Mass IndexBreast FeedingChildChild, PreschoolCohort StudiesFemaleGrowth ChartsHumansInfantLogistic ModelsMaleObesityOdds RatioAdiposity reboundBody mass indexChildGrowthObesityOverweightPercentileRisk factorsScotland

Identifiers

PMID27737667
PMCPMC5064913
OpenAlexW2530816428

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.