Volume 2017, Issue 1 8595129
Corrigendum
Open Access

Corrigendum to “Anthropometric Characteristics of Underprivileged Adolescents: A Study from Urban Slums of India”

Sushama A. Khopkar

Corresponding Author

Sushama A. Khopkar

Department of Statistics, H. P. T. Arts and R. Y. K. Sc. College, Nashik 422 005, India

Search for more papers by this author
Suvi M. Virtanen

Suvi M. Virtanen

Unit of Nutrition, Department of Lifestyle and Participation, National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland thl.fi

School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland uta.fi

Research Center for Child Health, Tampere University and University Hospital and the Science Center of Pirkanmaa Hospital District, Tampere, Finland uta.fi

Search for more papers by this author
Sangita Kulathinal

Sangita Kulathinal

Department of Food and Environmental Sciences, Division of Nutrition, University of Helsinki, 00014 Helsinki, Finland helsinki.fi

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 13 July 2017

In the article titled “Anthropometric Characteristics of Underprivileged Adolescents: A Study from Urban Slums of India,” [1] there were errors in Section  3.4, “Regression Analysis,” where the fourth paragraph should read as follows:

“Similarly, odds of thinness versus normal BMI were analysed under the regression models with age as an independent variable and then each of the other variables was added to the model. None of the independent variables showed significant association with thinness among boys (Table  5). However, for girls, age, mother’s education, and household size were significantly associated with thinness. When mother’s education increased from primary or no education to secondary or higher education, the odds of thinness versus normal BMI were reduced by 58%. One unit increase in a girl’s age reduced the odds by 17% while moving from household size of 4 or less to more than 5 reduced the odds by 62%. Once again, dietary data did not show any significant effect. In the multivariate analysis including all the independent variables, age and mother’s education remained significant for girls with similar effects as described above (data not shown).”

Therefore, Table  5 should be corrected as follows.

Table 5. Thinness-regression coefficients (β) and 90% confidence intervals under the mixed effects logistic regression model for thinness by sex. Log odds of thinness versus normal BMI were modeled. Each model included age and an additional covariate.
Boys Girls
β (CI) exp(β) (CI) β (CI) exp(β) (CI)
Age Years
  • −0.10
  • (−0.26, 0.06)
  • 0.91
  • (0.77, 1.06)
  • −0.18   
  • (−0.35, −0.02)
  • 0.83
  • (0.70, 0.98)
  
Household size 4 or less Reference Reference
5
  • 0.17
  • (−0.89, 1.23)
1.18
  • −0.19
  • (−1.13, 0.76)
  • 0.83
  • (0.32, 2.13)
More than 5
  • 0.36
  • (−0.68, 1.41)
  • 1.44
  • (0.51, 4.10)
  • −0.96   
  • (−1.88, −0.03)
  • 0.38
  • (0.15, 0.97)
  
Mother’s education Primary or no Reference Reference
secondary or higher
  • 0.12
  • (−0.71, 0.96)
  • 1.13
  • (0.49, 2.61)
  • −0.89   
  • (−1.68, −0.08)
  • 0.42
  • (0.19, 0.92)
  
Income Standardised
  • 0.04
  • (−0.34, 0.43)
  • 1.04
  • (0.71, 1.54)
  • −0.40
  • (−0.92, 0.12)
  • 0.67
  • (0.40, 1.12)
  
Consumption of Oil
  • 1.13
  • (−2.62, 4.87)
  • 3.08
  • (0.07, 130.32)
  • 2.94
  • (−0.22, 6.10)
  • 18.92
  • (0.80, 446.52)
Dal/pulses
  • −7.44
  • (−19.26, 4.38)
  • 0.0006
  • (0.43 × 10−8, 79.83)
  • 1.82
  • (−5.64, 9.28)
  • 6.17
  • (0.003, 1.08 × 104)
Meat/egg/fish
  • −2.06
  • (−6.47, 2.35)
  • 0.13
  • (0.002, 10.49)
  • 0.15
  • (−3.93, 4.23)
  • 1.16
  • (0.02, 69.03)
  • 0.01 ≤ P value ≤ 0.10.

    The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.