XXXX in 16-year-olds assessed by relative weight and doctors' rating.

@entity1 @entity28
Weights and heights at age 16 of 5652 @entity1 and 5280 @entity1 from the National @entity1 Development Study (NCDS) were measured. At this examination, school medical officers rated the @entity1 and @entity1 into one of the following categories: grossly @entity28 , moderately @entity28 , normal, thin or very thin. A comparison is made between doctors' rating and assessment of @entity28 by relative weight (RW). @entity28 was defined as RW greater than 120. Overall 803 (15.2 per cent) @entity1 were rated @entity28 by doctors compared with 469 (8.9 per cent) identified by RW. Only 414 (7.8 per cent) @entity1 were considered @entity28 by both methods. In @entity1 the difference between the two methods was less marked. There were 362 (6.4 per cent) @entity1 rated as @entity28 by doctors, 404 (7.2 per cent) by relative weight and 262 (4.6 per cent) by both methods. The discrepancies demonstrate that one method of assessment cannot replace another. Doctors' rated considerably more @entity1 than @entity1 as @entity28 . Although at this age @entity1 were heavier than @entity1 for a given height, the doctors' rating may also reflect the different attitudes towards @entity28 in @entity1 and @entity1 which are prevalent in our society. Without comparison with a more accurate measure of adiposity it is not possible to reach a definite conclusion as to whether clinical assessment, relative weight, or indeed both methods combined are the most suitable for identifying @entity28 adolescents.
