JRSM > Volume 99, Number 9 > Pp. 434-435

This Article Full Text (PDF) Send a Quick Comment Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Quick Comments are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ezzati, M. Articles by Murray, C. J L Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Letters

Trends in obesity

Authors' reply

Majid Ezzati^1,2   Christopher J L Murray^1,2

¹ Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, USA
² Initiative for Global Health, Harvard University, Cambridge, USA

Correspondence to: Majid Ezzati E-mail: mezzati{at}hsph.harvard.edu

Gori raises two generic methodological issues that are empirically irrelevant in the specific analysis in our paper:

1. The differences in response rate: BRFSS is the only available platform for monitoring obesity at the state level. Therefore, the relevant public health question is how to make its estimates comparable to NHANES, regardless of whether differences between BRFSS and NHANES are caused by individual reporting behaviour or lower response rate. The comparison of the two surveys is the correct way to address both sources of difference, as emphasized on page 250 of the paper.¹
   Furthermore, analysis of NHANES and BRFSS at the national level shows that the difference between estimates from the two surveys is zero or small when respondents are not likely to misreport intentionally². This result indicates that the underestimation of weight and height in BRFSS is more likely to be due to individual reporting behaviour than selection.
   
2. Exclusion criterion: the exclusion criterion was applied only to NHANES (and not to ‘both surveys’), to exclude those subjects with missing data for either self-reported or measured height and weight in this survey. Table 1 shows that the NHANES height and weight figures are completely robust to this exclusion criterion.
   

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 1. Age-standardized self-reported and measured height and weight in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) with and without exclusion of subjects who were missing either self-reported or measured data

 

Footnotes

Competing interests None declared.

REFERENCES

1. Ezzati M, Martin H, Skjold S, Hoorn SV, Murray CJL. Trends in national and state-level obesity in the USA after correction for self-report bias: analysis of health surveys. J R Soc Med2006; 99:250 -7[Abstract/Free Full Text]

2. Nelson DE, Powell-Griner E, Town M, Kovar MG. A comparison of national estimates from the National Health Interview Survey and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Am J Public Health 2003;93:1335 -41[Abstract/Free Full Text]

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This Article Full Text (PDF) Send a Quick Comment Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Quick Comments are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ezzati, M. Articles by Murray, C. J L Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                      What's this?