Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T00:00:21.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Field evaluation of two biochemical tests which may reflect nutritional status in three areas of Uganda

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

I. H. E. Rutishauser  and
R. G. Whitehead
I. H. E. Rutishauser
Affiliation:
Medical Research Council Infantile Malnutrition Research Unit, Mulago Hospital, Kampala, Uganda
R. G. Whitehead
Affiliation:
Medical Research Council Infantile Malnutrition Research Unit, Mulago Hospital, Kampala, Uganda
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Serum amino acid ratios and urinary hydroxyproline indices have been studied in three groups of children from different parts of Uganda. The results of these biochemical investigations are compared with clinical assessments and anthropometric measurements made at the same time.

2. In Buganda, an area where protein deficiency is prevalent, a high incidence of both abnormal hydroxyproline indices and amino acid ratios was found. In Karamoja, where a drought had caused a widespread shortage of food, the hydroxyproline indices were particularly low but the amino acid ratios were relatively normal. In Bukedi the dietary pattern was changing and becoming more like that in Buganda; this was reflected by the biochemical results obtained which were similar in the two areas.

3. The biochemical results confirmed earlier investigations, carried out in more severely ill children in a metabolic ward, which had indicated that these two tests can differentiate between primary protein deficiency and total calorie deficiency.

4. The biochemical tests confirmed the anthropometric measurements in a quantitative way, and also indicated the reason for the nutritional difficulties which could otherwise only have been surmised from the food habits of the area.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , March 1969 , pp. 1 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1969

References

Allbrook, D. B. & Sibthorpe, E. M. (1961). S. Afr. J. med. Sci. 26, 78.Google Scholar
Burgess, H. J. L. (1960). E. Afr. med. J. 39, 375.Google Scholar
Coles, R. M. (1957). E. Afr. med. J. 34, 619.Google Scholar
Howells, G. R. & Whitehead, R. G. (1967). J. med. Lab. Technol. 24, 98.Google Scholar
Jelliffe, D. B. (1966). Monograph Ser. W.H.O. no. 53.Google Scholar
Jelliffe, D. B., Bennett, F. J., Jelliffe, E. F. P. & White, R. H. R. (1964). Archs envir. Hlth 9, 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musoke, L. K. (1961). Archs Dis. Childh. 36, 305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oschinsky, L. (1954). In The Racial Affinity of the Baganda and other Bantu Tribes of British East Africa, p. 26. Cambridge: Heffer.Google Scholar
Prockop, D. & Undenfriend, S. (1960). Analyt. Biochem. 1, 228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhold, J. G. (1953). In Standard Methods of Clinical Chemistry. Vol. 1, p. 88. [Reiner, M., editor.] New York: Academic Press Inc.Google Scholar
Rutishauser, I. H. E. (1965). Lancet ii, 565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scrimshaw, N. S. & Béhar, M. (1961). Science, N. Y. 133, 2039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Standard, K. L., Lovell, H. G. & Garrow, J. S. (1966). J. trop. Pediat. 11, 100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuart, H. C. & Stevenson, S. S. (1954). In Textbook of Pediatrics, 8th ed., p. 48. [Nelson, W. E., editor.] Philadelphia: Saunders.Google Scholar
Tanner, J. M. & Whitehouse, R. H. (1962). Br. med. J. i, 446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waterlow, J. C. (1963). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 22, 66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, R. G. (1964). Lancet i, 250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, R. G. (1965). Lancet ii, 567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, R. G. (1966). Lancet i, 1325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, R. G. (1967). Archs Dis. Childh. 42, 479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, R. G. & Dean, R. F. A. (1964). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 14, 320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar