This is a cross-sectional study.
It was evaluated 100 schoolchildren,
aged between 6 and 10 years of a public school in the city of São Paulo,
Brazil.
The research was approved by the Ethics and Research Committee of the Santo Amaro University,
whose number is 1,103,468 dated 06/11/2015 and CAAE: 44933915.3.0000.0081.
A Form of Assent was signed by the children and the Informed Consent Form,
by the parents and/or legal guardians.
Both terms have been read,
explained and signed by both parties.
Initially,
the diagnosis was setted by the body mass index (BMI) [10] and waist circumference (WC) [11].
Anthropometric Evaluation
BMI,
according to WHO (2007)[10]:
≥ Percentile 85: Overweight
≥ Percentile 97: Obesity
WC,
according to McCarthy et al.
(2001)[11]:
≥ Percentile 90: Overweight
96 Normal 0 21 false false false PT-BR X-NONE X-NONE
≥ Percentile 95: Obesity
The ultrasonographic measures were,
according Sakuno et al.
(2014) [12]:
- Subcutaneous tissue thickness (SCCT), Fig. 3
- Preperitoneal fat thickness (PPF), Fig. 3
- Intraperitoneal fat thickness (IPFa), Fig. 4
- Intraperitoneal fat thickness (IPFp), Fig. 4
- Minor omentum thickness (IPFo), Fig. 5
Cut-off points were setted using eutrophics as a reference.
The percentile 97.5 was calculated for each ultrasography measure according to the different anthropometric diagnoses (BMI and WC),
from which it was considered risk for overweight and obesity.
See the graphics.
Fig. 6,
about Subcutaneous tissue thickness (SCCT)
Fig. 7,
about Preperitoneal fat thickness (PPF)
Fig. 8,
about Intraperitoneal fat thickness (IPFa)
Fig. 9,
about Intraperitoneal fat thickness (IPFp)
Fig. 10,
about Minor omentum thickness (IPFo)