상박위(上膊圍)에 의(依)한 성장기(成長期) 아동(兒童)에 영양상태(營養狀態)의 판정(判定)에 관(關)한 연구(硏究)

A Study on the Nutritional Assessment of Early Childhood Using Mid-Upper-Arm Circumference

Growth retardation and a variable degree of body disproportion are recognized features of malnutrition, and mild and moderate protein-calorie malnutrition(PCM). Among the various body measurements suggested to assess the prevalence of all grades of PCM as judged by growth retardation and by body disproportion, the 'mid-upper-arm circumference'-abbreviated to 'arm-circumference' has been suggested as a potential useful simple field index for the assessment of PCM showing that the measurement would give composite information simultaneously on three important effects on PCM-deficit in the muscle protein reservoirs, availability of calorie stores in the form of subcutaneous fat, and growth failure. And this is selected because of its easy accessibility, and less involvement with clinical edema. This study is conducted to make a comparison between the percentage of Korean weight for age standards and the percentage of mid-upper-arm circumference for age standards of 175 preschool children aged $3{\sim}72$ months who are selected among the low-income residents in Seoul. In this study, a comparison is made between the results obtained by expressing the observed weight of the child as a percentage of Korean standard, referred to as 'weight-for-age' and the observed arm-circumference expressed as a percentage of the age-specific arm standard of Jelliffe, referred to as 'arm-for-age'. All the measurements were taken following the techniques described by Jelliffe. The left mid upper arm was measured using a glass-fibre tape and the Fairbanks Morse beam balance was used for weighing. 80% level of weight for age Korean standard and 85% level of arm for are Jelliffe standard were used as an upper borderline limit for PCM. Comparing the 80% weight-for-age and the 85% arm-for-age standard as an upper limit for PCM, for children aged $3{\sim}72$ months, results in 84.6% agreement with the sensitivity of 86.4% and its specificity of 83.5%. If arm circumference alone had been measured and judgement made on this basis, then only 5.1% of the children would have been 'wrongly' classified. And there is a moderately close correlation between arm circumference and weight for age as the data in Table 4 shows. The problem therefore lies in the standard for arm circumference in normal children and in determining what is the lower limit of normal. Once this is clearly difined, one can rely more confidently on arm circumference measurements alone for the nutritional assessment of early childhood.