AJCN Cancer Health Disparities Conference
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Morgan, D. B.
Right arrow Articles by Burkinshaw, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Morgan, D. B.
Right arrow Articles by Burkinshaw, L.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Morgan, D. B.
Right arrow Articles by Burkinshaw, L.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 33, 2101-2105, Copyright © 1980 by The American Society for Clinical Nutrition, Inc


ORIGINAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

The assessment of weight loss from a single measurement of body weight: the problems and limitations

DB Morgan, GL Hill and L Burkinshaw

Estimation of weight loss plays a key role in the nutritional assessment of patients. The loss is usually calculated by subtracting the patient's observed weight (O) either from his recalled weight (R) or from his predicted weight (P) taken from standard tables or equations. We have compared these two assessments of weight loss (R-O, P-O) in a cross-sectional study of patients in the surgical wards of a teaching hospital. There are large differences (up to 15 kg) between average predicted weights taken from the various published tables. We have obtained predicted weights using equations derived from a healthy local population. We have devised a general technique with which the measured, R and P weights in a group can be used to give random errors of R, P, and true weight loss. In our patients there were 3.6, 10.7, and 6.0 kg respectively. As the random error of R was smaller than that of P in our patients, R-O gave better estimates of the mean and SD of the weight losses of the group of patients than did P-O, and R-O was a more precise estimate of the true weight loss of an individual. Nevertheless, R-O is only an estimate of the true weight loss and had a large random error (up to 7.2 kg). This error which can be calculated for any group of patients, must be borne in mind when using R-O to estimate the weight loss in an individual, and when selecting patients with a given weight loss. In 100 patients such as ours, 24 would have R- O greater than 10 kg, but only 18 of these would have lost 10 kg, and nine other patients who had lost 10 kg would be missed.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Clin. Pathol.Home page
W J Marshall
Nutritional assessment: its role in the provision of nutritional support
J. Clin. Pathol., October 1, 2008; 61(10): 1083 - 1088.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Clin. Nutr.Home page
S. Peng, L. D Plank, J. L McCall, L. K Gillanders, K. McIlroy, and E. J Gane
Body composition, muscle function, and energy expenditure in patients with liver cirrhosis: a comprehensive study
Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, May 1, 2007; 85(5): 1257 - 1266.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Nutr Clin PractHome page
N. R. Parekh and E. Steiger
Percentage of Weight Loss as a Predictor of Surgical Risk: From the Time of Hiram Studley to Today
Nutr Clin Pract, October 1, 2004; 19(5): 471 - 476.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JCOHome page
I. Chau, A. R. Norman, D. Cunningham, J. S. Waters, J. Oates, and P. J. Ross
Multivariate Prognostic Factor Analysis in Locally Advanced and Metastatic Esophago-Gastric Cancer--Pooled Analysis From Three Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Trials Using Individual Patient Data
J. Clin. Oncol., June 15, 2004; 22(12): 2395 - 2403.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Arch SurgHome page
D. E. Carney and M. M. Meguid
Current Concepts in Nutritional Assessment
Arch Surg, January 1, 2002; 137(1): 42 - 45.
[Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1980 by The American Society for Nutrition