Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Data regarding the validity of self-reported weight and height in adolescents are conflicting.

Objectives: To evaluate the validity of self-reported weight and height among 13–14 year old schoolchildren. 

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 517 schoolchildren aged 13–14 years and compared self-reported and measured weight and height by gender, population group, parental education and crowdedness.

Results: Females under-reported their weight on average by 0.79 ± 5.46 kg (P = 0.03), resulting in underestimation of the body mass index with borderline significance (mean difference 0.28 ± 2.26 kg/m², P = 0.06). Males over-reported their height on average by 0.75 ± 5.81 cm (P = 0.03). Children from less crowded homes (≤ 1 person per room) overestimated their height more than children from more crowded homes, resulting in a significant underestimation of BMI[1] (mean difference between reported BMI and measured values was 0.30 ± 2.36 kg/m², P = 0.04). Measured BMI was a significant predictor of the difference between self-reported and measured BMI, adjusted for gender, population group, parents' education, and crowdedness (β = -0.3, P < 0.0001). As a result of this reporting bias, only 54.9% of children with overweight and obesity (BMI ≥ 85th percentile) were classified correctly, while 6.3% of children were wrongly classified as overweight and obese. The largest difference in BMI was observed in obese females (4.40 ± 4.34) followed by overweight females (2.18 ± 1.95) and underweight females (-1.38 ± 1.75). Similar findings were observed for males, where the largest difference was found among obese males (2.83 ± 3.44).

Conclusions: Studies based on self-reported weight and height in adolescents may be biased. Attempts should be made to correct this bias, based on the available data for each population.

Objectives: To identify patients with PPD and to describe their consultation patterns with primary care physicians for themselves and their babies.

Methods: Using a telephone survey and the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale questionnaire we identified PPD in a sample of women who gave birth in HaEmek Medical Center. We also assessed the extent to which the women consulted with family physicians, gynecologists and/or pediatricians.

Results: The survey included 574 women, of whom 9.9% were diagnosed with PPD. There was a higher rate of PPD among Arab compared to Jewish women, among women with a prior history of depression, among women whose pregnancy was unplanned, among those who described the course of pregnancy as “difficult,” and among women who described their general health as “not good.” Women with PPD consulted more with family physicians and pediatricians. The reasons for the consultations are physical and emotional. There were cases of somatization manifested directly by the mother or indirectly through the baby.

Conclusions: Women with PPD have higher consultation rates than those without. By asking a few simple questions it is possible to identify a significant proportion of women with PPD.

Ghrelin, a 28 amino acid acylated peptide predominantly produced by the stomach, displays strong growth hormone-releasing activity mediated by the hypothalamus-pituitary GH[1] secretagogue receptors that were found to be specific for a family of synthetic, orally active GH secretagogues. The discovery of ghrelin brings us to a new understanding of the regulation of GH secretion. However, ghrelin is much more than simply a natural GH secretagogue. It also acts on other central and peripheral receptors and exhibits other actions, including stimulation of lactotroph and corticotroph secretion, orexigenia, influences gastroenteropancreatic functions, and has metabolic, cardiovascular and anti-proliferative effects. Knowledge of the whole spectrum of biologic activities of this new hormone will provide new understanding of some critical aspects of neuroscience, metabolism and internal medicine. In fact, GHS[2] were born more than 20 years ago as synthetic molecules, eliciting the hope that orally active GHS could be used to treat GH deficiency as an alternative to recombinant human GH. However, the dream did not become reality and the usefulness of GHS as an anabolic anti-aging intervention restoring the GH/IGF-I[3] axis in somatopause is still unclear. Instead, we now face the theoretic possibility that GHS analogues acting as agonists or antagonists could become candidate drugs for the treatment of pathophysiologic conditions in internal medicine totally unrelated to disorders of GH secretion.