English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background When evaluating peripubertal short stature patients, the interpretation of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) levels based on chronological age (CA) can be inaccurate due to the influence of sex steroids and, presently, there is no evidence to support the assessment of IGF-1 values according to bone age (BA) and pubertal status (PS). Our objective was to assess the discriminatory performance of IGF-1 levels based on CA, BA and PS in the diagnosis of growth hormone (GH) deficiency. Methods We evaluated IGF-1 levels from 154 peripubertal short stature patients classified as GH deficient (GHD, n=23) or non-GHD (n=131). IGF-1 was assayed by a chemiluminescent immunometric assay and transformed into standard deviation scores (SDS) according to CA (IGF-1-SDS-CA), BA (IGF-1-SDS-BA) and PS (IGF-1-SDS-PS). Results The performances of IGF-1-SDS-CA, IGF-1-SDS-BA and IGF-1-SDS-PS in the receiver operator characteristics (ROC) curves were similar. There were greater accuracy and specificity of IGF-1-SDS-PS (98.4% and 93.3%, respectively) and IGF-1-SDS-BA (92.7% and 90.1%, respectively) when compared to IGF-1-SDS-CA (65.6% and 69.5%, respectively). The post-test probability of the IGF-1-SDS was also improved when compared to PS and BA - 44.8% (IGF-1-SDS-PS), 16.8% (IGF-1-SDS-BA) and 5.1% (IGF-1-SDS-CA), with similar negative predictive values. Conclusions The evaluation of IGF-1 levels based on CA has a higher sensitivity than those based on BA or PS, which justify its use as a screening tool. Additionally, IGF-1 assessed by PS has the best positive predictive power for GHD diagnosis in peripubertal age and could reduce the necessity of a second GH stimulation test.

IGF-1 assessed by pubertal status has the best positive predictive power for GH deficiency diagnosis in peripubertal children