Multiplier Method for Predicting the Sitting Height Growth at Maturity: A Database Analysis
by
, , ,
Julio J. Jauregui
1
,
Larysa P. Hlukha
2,
Philip K. McClure
2,
Dror Paley
3,
Mordchai B. Shualy
4,
Maya B. Goldberg
4 and
John E. Herzenberg
2,* 1
Department of Orthopaedics, University of Maryland Medical Center, 110 S. Paca Street, 6th Floor, Suite 300, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA
2
International Center for Limb Lengthening, Rubin Institute for Advanced Orthopedics, Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, 2401 W. Belvedere Ave, Baltimore, MD 21215, USA
3
Paley Orthopedic and Spine Institute, 901 45th St. Kimmel Building, West Palm Beach, FL 33407, USA
4
Beth Tfiloh Dahan Community School, 3300 Old Court Rd, Pikesville, MD 21208, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Children 2022, 9(11), 1763; https://doi.org/10.3390/children9111763
Submission received: 12 October 2022
/
Revised: 11 November 2022
/
Accepted: 14 November 2022
/
Published: 17 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Orthopedics and Trauma in Children)
Abstract
:This study aims to develop multipliers for the spine and sitting height to predict sitting height at maturity. With the aid of longitudinal and cross-sectional clinical databases, we divided the total sitting height, cervical, thoracic, and lumbar lengths at skeletal maturity by these same four factors at each age for each percentile given. A series of comparisons were then carried out between the multipliers as well as the percentiles and the varied racial and ethnic groups within them. Regarding sitting height, there was little variability and correlated with the multipliers calculated for the thoracic and lumbar spine. The multiplier method has demonstrated accuracy that is not influenced by generation, percentile, race, and ethnicity. This multiplier can be used to anticipate mature sitting height, the heights of the thoracic, cervical, and lumbar spine, as well as the lack of spinal growth after spinal fusion surgery in skeletally immature individuals.
1. Introduction
Volumetric growth and ossification of the spine is a remarkably long and slow pro-cess that starts around the third month of prenatal life and continues until the second decade of life. Spine deformity, especially in early life, can negatively affect a growing spine as asymmetric forces act upon the vertebral column’s growth plates. Spinal growth involves more than 130 growth plates that work in synchronicity. Because sitting height is a major component of spinal growth it provides a good parameter to observe and evaluate the progression of spinal growth [1].
Knowledge of spinal growth is of interest to spinal surgeons due to the nature of treating spine-related disorders where the growth ratios between remaining and elapsed growth are important parameters for surgical planning. Paley et al. [2] devised the multi-plier method, a method of limb-length discrepancy and growth prediction. This method uses simple growth coefficients (also known as multipliers) to provide accurate predic-tions of limb length at maturity [3,4]. Spine growth, however, is a dynamic process and does not progress linearly; rather, it consists of periods of acceleration and subsequent de-celeration [1]. Hence, the multipliers do not isolate the growth spurt that occurs during adolescence and the growth that remains is a deciding factor for the intensifying of spinal deformities such as congenital scoliosis, kyphoscoliosis, and angular thoracolumbar ky-phosis in patients with achondroplasia.
Sitting height consists of pelvic height, spine height, and skull height, and therefore serves as a capable tool for predicting spinal growth at maturity [5,6,7]. The known pub-lished data assessing spinal growth based on sitting-height measurements either focuses mostly on one social class or ethnic group or does not stratify by age or sex. We intended to consolidate the databases that assess sitting height and develop multipliers that predict sitting height to aid in spine deformity correction.
2. Materials and Methods
We calculated and compared the multipliers for different percentiles of 16 databases with sitting-height measurement data [1,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18]. Fredriks et al. provided the most compre-hensive assessment of spinal growth for each percentile group at each age [9]. At each age and percentile group, we divided the sitting height at skeletal maturity (Lm) by the corre-sponding sitting height at each given age (L): (M = Lm/L). We compared these multipliers (M) for each percentile group at each age. In addition, we calculated multipliers from two radiographic databases that contained measurements of the lumbar, thoracic, and cervical spine segments. These were largely obtained from standing or sitting radiographs. The databases provided measurements for a range of ages and included measurements ob-tained until subjects achieved skeletal maturity.
All data were tabulated using spreadsheet software (Excel; Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA) with the aid of a statistical program (SPSS; IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). A series of polynomial regression analyses were used to evaluate the correlation between mean values in each of the databases using Fredriks et al.’s data as the “gold standard” database due to its inclusion of important variables such as age, ethnicity, and congenital variations. The mean sitting height that was reported for each age and stratified by sex in each of the databases was compared with the mean sitting height and the previously described SDs.
3. Results
We found that in Fredriks et al.’s database [9], the multipliers for each SD (−2.5 SD, −1 SD, 0 SD, +1 SD, +2.5 SD) at each given age for both males and females (mean variability ±0.065; maximum variability ±0.372) were similar. We also found that the variability between the multipliers was highest at birth, and generally decreased as age increased (Figure 1 and Figure 2).
We then compared the mean multipliers of sitting height to the multipliers for the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar segments of the spine. The multipliers of the thoracic and lumbar segments were nearly identical to those of sitting height (mean variability ±0.012; max variability ±0.043). The cervical multipliers, however, were substantially higher than those calculated from sitting height. The cervical multipliers are virtually identical to upper-extremity multipliers (mean variability ±0.0489; max variability ±0.060) [2]. See Figure 3 for a detailed comparison of all multipliers.
To diversify our data and ensure accuracy, we incorporated sitting heights from various continents and countries into our research. Zivicnjak et al. [13] published a cross-sectional study documenting the growth of 5155 (2591 female and 2564 male) Croatian children. The subjects were selected from various schools and kindergartens within the town of Zagreb to represent the entire socioeconomic spectrum. The multipliers calculated from Zivicnjak et al.’s data were virtually identical to those calculated by Fredriks et al. [9]. Pathmanathan and Prakash [14] also conducted a cross-sectional survey of northwestern Indian children. They measured the sitting height, leg length, and weight in 668 children (327 females and 341 males) between ages 6 and 16. Of the 668 children, 80% were measured more than once yearly. The multipliers calculated from this study correlated closely with those of Fredriks et al.
4. Discussion
The prediction of adolescent sitting height is germane to pediatricians and spinal surgeons. Other methods of growth prediction require both the determination of the sub-ject’s growth percentile and the use of a graph, all of which we have now consolidated in-to one simple formula (Figure 4).
Aldegheri and Agostini [19] produced a study compiled from previously published information on sitting height, but the ethnicity or race of subjects is not included. Only the means of sitting height are included without any SDs. Although the female multipliers generated show little variation from those generated from Frederik et al.’s data, the devia-tion between the male multipliers is considerably greater. While we are unsure of the exact reasons for the disparity between the Aldegheri and Fredriks et al. studies until age seven, we believe it has to do with the small sample size.
This work has limitations. Even though the sitting-height multiplier is meant to be universal, and we found consistency throughout all studied populations after comparing growth in many different studies, we believe that ultimately the physician should deter-mine if each patient is following the growth curves presented by the multiplier. We also believe that whenever assessing spinal growth alterations and pathologies requiring spi-nal fusion or epiphysiodesis, the spinal growth will not necessarily follow the expected growth. Spinal growth can involve vertebrae changes as well as changes to the vertebral disk height. This may have implications for changes in the sitting height after maturity [18].
Longitudinal studies have demonstrated growth patterns more accurately than cross-sectional studies, as they have traced the growth of individuals over an elapsed pe-riod. However, there are far fewer longitudinal studies available due to the high cost and time limitations to perform such studies. A territory-wide cross-sectional study by Leung et al. [10] evaluated the sitting height of 25,000 Chinese children of higher socioeconomic status from birth through 18 years of age. Similarly, Lin et al. [11] assessed the sitting heights of Han children (the main ethnic group in China) and 27 minority groups. In total, 409,941 Han children and 70,298 minority children between the ages of 7 and 18 were measured. The authors reported that the sitting heights recorded from the Han cohort were generally higher than those recorded from the minority groups. However, when comparing the multipliers of Leung et al. [10] and both groups of Lin et al. [11] to the mul-tipliers generated from Fredriks et al. [9] data, a minimal difference is observed.
Lee et al. [12] published a longitudinal study observing 1,139 healthy Taipei school-children ranging from 8 to 18 years of age. In addition to sitting height, they also docu-mented arm span, skinfold thickness, and body mass index from 1994 through 1997. Alt-hough it has been suggested that longitudinal studies hold more accuracy than cross-sectional, the Lee et al. [12] multipliers held little variability to those of Fredriks et al. [9].
The multiplier method also can determine the appropriate timing of arthrodesis, as well as to predict the amount of height lost because of a specific spine operation. Each vertebra in the lumbar and thoracic spine make approximately equal growth contributions—i.e., any single vertebra in the lumbar spine contributes approximately one-fifth of the total growth of the lumbar spine, and any single vertebra in the thoracic spine contrib-utes approximately one-twelfth of the total growth of the thoracic spine [15,20]. Therefore, to predict the height of a single lumbar vertebra at maturity (Llv), multiply the current length of the lumbar spine (Lls) by the multiplier for the current age (M) and divide the result by five ([LlsM]/5 = Llv). Similarly, to predict the height of a single thoracic vertebra at maturity (Ltv), multiply the current length of the lumbar spine (Lts) by the multiplier for the current age (M) and divide the result by twelve ((LtsM)/12 = Ltv) (Figure 5).
To calculate the growth lost as the result of arthrodesis, one must first calculate the growth remaining in the affected area of the spine. Growth remaining (G) is equal to the length of the relevant section of the spine at maturity minus the current length of the rele-vant section (M[L-1] = G). Thus, to calculate the growth lost as a result of arthrodesis (Ge), multiply the growth remaining for a single vertebra in the relevant segment of the spine ([(Lls(M-1)]/5 for lumbar vertebrae); ([Lts(M-1)]/12 for thoracic vertebrae) by the number of vertebrae fused (Vf) (Figure 5).
The prediction of sitting height is an important factor in the planning of limb length-ening for achondroplastic dwarfism [3]. As demonstrated by Paley et al., there is a close correlation between the sitting heights of these patients and normal subjects [3,16,20,21,22]. Hence, our sitting height multiplier also can be employed for achondroplastic patients [3]. In normal adults, sitting height comprises 53% of the total standing height at skeletal ma-turity [23,24,25]. Therefore, when lower extremity lengthening is planned in achondroplastic patients, the goal is to obtain a length in the lower extremity of 88.6% (47/53) of the pre-dicted sitting height, to achieve Vitruvian proportions.
Paley et al. have shown that the multipliers are independent of percentile groupings, height, generation, socioeconomic class, ethnicity, and race, and this independence has been clinically validated [2,4,17]. Such a relationship could be considered a mathematical property of human growth and development. The relative size and curve of the various multipliers are indicators of normal proportion; the lower extremity, having the highest multiplier, increases the most proportionally, from 35% of the height at birth to 47% of the height at skeletal maturity [20]. Sitting height, on the other hand, has a lower multiplier, decreasing proportionally from 65% of the height at birth to 53% at skeletal maturity.
5. Conclusions
Most known current data that has attempted to accurately predict spinal growth at maturity focuses on either specific ethnic groups or concentrates on a particular patient population—such those with congenital scoliosis or achondroplasia. We evaluated available databases on sitting height and multipliers for spinal growth and consolidated them to develop a multiplier for predicting sitting height growth at maturity. This method can also aid in calculating growth modification resulting from arthrodesis as well as facilitaing planning for limb lengthening procedures with challenging diagnoses such as achondroplasic dwarfism.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, J.E.H.; methodology, J.J.J.; formal analysis, J.J.J.; resources, D.P.; data curation, L.P.H., M.B.S., M.B.G.; writing—original draft preparation, J.J.J.; writing—review and editing, L.P.H., P.K.M.; supervision, D.P., J.E.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Robert P. Farley, BS for assistance with the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest
P.K.M. is a consultant for DePuy Synthes Companies, Novadip, NuVasive Specialized Orthopedics, Orthofix, and Smith & Nephew. J.E.H. is a consultant for NuVasive Specialized Orthopedics, Orthofix, OrthoPediatrics, and Smith & Nephew. The following organizations supported the institution of L.P.H., P.K.M. and J.E.H.: DePuy Synthes, NuVasive Specialized Orthopedics, Orthofix, OrthoPediatrics, Paragon 28, Pega Medical, Smith & Nephew, Stryker, Turner Imaging Systems, and WishBone Medical. J.J.J. and D.P. do not have any conflicts to report. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.
References
- Cheung, J.P.Y.; Luk, K.D. Managing the pediatric spine: Growth assessment. Asian Spine J. 2017, 11, 804–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Paley, D.; Gelman, A.; Shualy, M.B.; Herzenberg, J.E. Multiplier method for limb-length prediction in the upper extremity. J. Hand Surg. Am. 2008, 33, 385–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Paley, D.; Matz, A.L.; Kurland, D.B.; Lamm, B.M.; Herzenberg, J.E. Multiplier method for prediction of adult height in patients with achondroplasia. J. Pediatr. Orthop. 2005, 25, 539–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Paley, J.; Talor, J.; Levin, A.; Bhave, A.; Paley, D.; Herzenberg, J.E. The multiplier method for prediction of adult height. J. Pediatr. Orthop. 2004, 24, 732–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bundak, R.; Bas, F.; Furman, A.; Günöz, H.; Darendeliler, F.; Saka, N.; Poyrazoğlu, S.; Neyzi, O. Sitting height and sitting height/height ratio references for Turkish children. Eur. J. Pediatr. 2014, 173, 861–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abou-Hussein, S.; Abela, M.; Savona-Ventura, C. Body mass index adjustment for sitting height for better assessment of obesity risks in Maltese women. Int. J. Risk Saf. Med. 2011, 23, 241–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woynarowska, B.; Palczewska, I.; Oblacińska, A. WHO child growth standards for children 0-5 years. Percentile charts of length/height, weight, body mass index and head circumference. Med. Wieku Rozw. 2012, 16, 232–239. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Tulsi, R.S. Growth of the human vertebral column. An osteological study. Acta Anat. 1971, 79, 570–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fredriks, A.M.; van Buuren, S.; van Heel, W.J.; Dijkman-Neerincx, R.H.; Verloove-Vanhorick, S.P.; Wit, J.M. Nationwide age references for sitting height, leg length, and sitting height/height ratio, and their diagnostic value for disproportionate growth disorders. Arch. Dis. Child. 2005, 90, 807–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Leung, S.S.; Lau, J.T.; Xu, Y.Y.; Tse, L.Y.; Huen, K.F.; Wong, G.W.; Law, W.Y.; Yeung, V.T.; Yeung, W.K.; Leung, N.K. Secular changes in standing height, sitting height and sexual maturation of Chinese—The Hong Kong Growth Study, 1993. Ann. Hum. Biol. 1996, 23, 297–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, W.S.; Zhu, F.C.; Chen, A.C.; Xin, W.H.; Su, Z.; Li, J.Y.; Ye, G.S. Physical growth of Chinese school children 7–18 years, in 1985. Ann. Hum. Biol. 1992, 19, 41–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lee, T.S.; Chao, T.; Tang, R.B.; Hsieh, C.C.; Chen, S.J.; Ho, L.T. A longitudinal study of growth patterns in schoolchildren in one Taipei District. II: Sitting height, arm span, body mass index and skinfold thickness. J. Chin. Med. Assoc. 2005, 68, 16–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zivicnjak, M.; Narancić, N.S.; Szirovicza, L.; Franke, D.; Hrenović, J.; Bisof, V. Gender-specific growth patterns for stature, sitting height and limbs length in Croatian children and youth (3 to 18 years of age). Coll. Antropol. 2003, 27, 321–334. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Pathmanathan, G.; Prakash, S. Growth of sitting height, subischial leg length and weight in well-off northwestern Indian children. Ann. Hum. Biol. 1994, 21, 325–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alhadlaq, A.M.; Al-Shayea, E.I. New method for evaluation of cervical vertebral maturation based on angular measurements. Saudi Med. J. 2013, 34, 388–394. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Marík, I.; Zemková, D.; Kubát, R.; Rygl, M.; Friedlová, J. Prediction of body height and shortening of the lower part of the body in adults with achondroplasia. Acta Chir. Orthop. Traumatol. Cech 1989, 56, 507–515. (In Czech) [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Rosario, A.S.; Schienkiewitz, A.; Neuhauser, H. German height references for children aged 0 to under 18 years compared to WHO and CDC growth charts. Ann. Hum. Biol. 2011, 38, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Howell, F.R.; Mahood, J.K.; Dickson, R.A. Growth beyond skeletal maturity. Spine 1992, 17, 437–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aldegheri, R.; Agostini, S. A chart of anthropometric values. J. Bone Joint Surg. 1993, 75, 86–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Raimondi, A.J.; Di Rocco, C. Principles of Pediatric Neurosurgery. In The Pediatric Spine, Development and Dyscratic State; Raimondi, A.J., Choux, M., Di Rocco, C., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1989; pp. 39–83. [Google Scholar]
- Shchurov, V.A.; Kudrin, B.I.; Gerasimov, S.A. Anthropometric approach to basing the surgical correction of body length and proportions in achondroplasia patients. Ortop. Travmatol. Protez 1981, 9, 30–33. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
- Hunter, A.G.; Hecht, J.T.; Scott, C.I., Jr. Standard weight for height curves in achondroplasia. Am. J. Med. Genet. 1996, 62, 255–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mather, G. Head-body ratio as a visual cue for stature in people and sculptural art. Perception 2010, 39, 1390–1395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Le Floch-Prigent, P. The Vitruvian Man: An anatomical drawing for proportions by Leonardo Da Vinci. Morphologie 2008, 92, 204–209. (In French) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Creed, J.C. Leonardo da Vinci, Vitruvian Man. JAMA 1986, 256, 1541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1.
Mean and standard deviation for the female sitting height multiplier were calculated using data from Fredriks et al. [9].
Figure 1.
Mean and standard deviation for the female sitting height multiplier were calculated using data from Fredriks et al. [9].
Figure 2.
Mean and standard deviation for the male sitting height multiplier were calculated using data from Fredriks et al. [9].
Figure 2.
Mean and standard deviation for the male sitting height multiplier were calculated using data from Fredriks et al. [9].
Figure 3.
Upper extremity, sitting height, cervical, thoracic, and lumbar multipliers.
Figure 4.
Equation for spinal sitting height multiplier. M, age-specific multiplier; S, age-specific sitting height.
Figure 4.
Equation for spinal sitting height multiplier. M, age-specific multiplier; S, age-specific sitting height.
Figure 5.
Equation for predicting height of the single lumbar and thoracic vertebrae and remaining growth. L, age-specific length; Lsl, age-specific length of lumbar spine; Lst, age-specific length of thoracic spine; Lvl, length of single lumbar vertebra at maturity; Lvt, length of single thoracic vertebra at maturity; M, age-specific multiplier; S, age-specific sitting height.
Figure 5.
Equation for predicting height of the single lumbar and thoracic vertebrae and remaining growth. L, age-specific length; Lsl, age-specific length of lumbar spine; Lst, age-specific length of thoracic spine; Lvl, length of single lumbar vertebra at maturity; Lvt, length of single thoracic vertebra at maturity; M, age-specific multiplier; S, age-specific sitting height.
Table 1.
Sitting height multiplier for 0 to 3 years of age.
| Age (Years + Months) | Boys | Girls | Age (Years + Months) | Boys | Girls |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 + 1 | - | - | 3 + 1 | 1.688 | 1.611 |
| 0 + 2 | - | - | 3 + 2 | 1.681 | 1.603 |
| 0 + 3 | 2.315 | 2.153 | 3 + 3 | 1.673 | 1.596 |
| 0 + 4 | 2.165 | 2.052 | 3 + 4 | 1.666 | 1.589 |
| 0 + 5 | 2.131 | 2.024 | 3 + 5 | 1.658 | 1.581 |
| 0 + 6 | 2.096 | 1.995 | 3 + 6 | 1.651 | 1.574 |
| 0 + 7 | 2.04 | 1.944 | 3 + 7 | 1.643 | 1.567 |
| 0 + 8 | 2.006 | 1.916 | 3 + 8 | 1.635 | 1.559 |
| 0 + 9 | 1.971 | 1.887 | 3 + 9 | 1.628 | 1.552 |
| 0 + 10 | 1.968 | 1.839 | 3 + 10 | 1.62 | 1.545 |
| 0 + 11 | 1.934 | 1.839 | 3 + 11 | 1.613 | 1.537 |
| 1 | 1.899 | 1.81 | 4 | 1.605 | 1.53 |
| 1 + 1 | 1.888 | 1.799 | 4 + 1 | 1.598 | 1.523 |
| 1 + 2 | 1.877 | 1.788 | 4 + 2 | 1.591 | 1.516 |
| 1 + 3 | 1.865 | 1.777 | 4 + 3 | 1.585 | 1.508 |
| 1 + 4 | 1.854 | 1.765 | 4 + 4 | 1.578 | 1.501 |
| 1 + 5 | 1.843 | 1.754 | 4 + 5 | 1.571 | 1.494 |
| 1 + 6 | 1.832 | 1.743 | 4 + 6 | 1.564 | 1.487 |
| 1 + 7 | 1.82 | 1.732 | 4 + 7 | 1.557 | 1.479 |
| 1 + 8 | 1.809 | 1.721 | 4 + 8 | 1.55 | 1.472 |
| 1 + 9 | 1.798 | 1.71 | 4 + 9 | 1.544 | 1.465 |
| 1 + 10 | 1.787 | 1.698 | 4 + 10 | 1.537 | 1.458 |
| 1 + 11 | 1.775 | 1.687 | 4 + 11 | 1.53 | 1.45 |
| 2 | 1.764 | 1.676 | 5 | 1.523 | 1.443 |
| 2 + 1 | 1.758 | 1.671 | 5 + 1 | 1.517 | 1.437 |
| 2 + 2 | 1.753 | 1.666 | 5 + 2 | 1.512 | 1.431 |
| 2 + 3 | 1.747 | 1.662 | 5 + 3 | 1.506 | 1.425 |
| 2 + 4 | 1.741 | 1.657 | 5 + 4 | 1.5 | 1.419 |
| 2 + 5 | 1.736 | 1.652 | 5 + 5 | 1.494 | 1.413 |
| 2 + 6 | 1.73 | 1.647 | 5 + 6 | 1.489 | 1.408 |
| 2 + 7 | 1.724 | 1.642 | 5 + 7 | 1.483 | 1.402 |
| 2 + 8 | 1.719 | 1.637 | 5 + 8 | 1.477 | 1.396 |
| 2 + 9 | 1.713 | 1.633 | 5 + 9 | 1.471 | 1.39 |
| 2 + 10 | 1.707 | 1.628 | 5 + 10 | 1.466 | 1.384 |
| 2 + 11 | 1.702 | 1.623 | 5 + 11 | 1.46 | 1.378 |
| 3 | 1.696 | 1.618 | 6 | 1.454 | 1.372 |
Table 2.
Sitting height multiplier for 6+ to 9 years of age.
| Age (Years + Months) | Boys | Girls | Age (Years + Months) | Boys | Girls |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 + 1 | 1.449 | 1.368 | 9 + 1 | 1.291 | 1.212 |
| 6 + 2 | 1.443 | 1.364 | 9 + 2 | 1.288 | 1.209 |
| 6 + 3 | 1.438 | 1.36 | 9 + 3 | 1.286 | 1.206 |
| 6 + 4 | 1.432 | 1.356 | 9 + 4 | 1.283 | 1.203 |
| 6 + 5 | 1.427 | 1.352 | 9 + 5 | 1.281 | 1.2 |
| 6 + 6 | 1.422 | 1.348 | 9 + 6 | 1.278 | 1.197 |
| 6 + 7 | 1.416 | 1.344 | 9 + 7 | 1.276 | 1.193 |
| 6 + 8 | 1.411 | 1.34 | 9 + 8 | 1.273 | 1.19 |
| 6 + 9 | 1.405 | 1.336 | 9 + 9 | 1.271 | 1.187 |
| 6 + 10 | 1.4 | 1.332 | 9 + 10 | 1.268 | 1.184 |
| 6 + 11 | 1.394 | 1.328 | 9 + 11 | 1.266 | 1.181 |
| 7 | 1.389 | 1.324 | 10 | 1.263 | 1.178 |
| 7 + 1 | 1.385 | 1.319 | 10 + 1 | 1.26 | 1.175 |
| 7 + 2 | 1.381 | 1.315 | 10 + 2 | 1.258 | 1.172 |
| 7 + 3 | 1.376 | 1.31 | 10 + 3 | 1.255 | 1.169 |
| 7 + 4 | 1.372 | 1.305 | 10 + 4 | 1.252 | 1.166 |
| 7 + 5 | 1.368 | 1.3 | 10 + 5 | 1.249 | 1.163 |
| 7 + 6 | 1.364 | 1.296 | 10 + 6 | 1.247 | 1.161 |
| 7 + 7 | 1.359 | 1.291 | 10 + 7 | 1.244 | 1.158 |
| 7 + 8 | 1.355 | 1.286 | 10 + 8 | 1.241 | 1.155 |
| 7 + 9 | 1.351 | 1.281 | 10 + 9 | 1.238 | 1.152 |
| 7 + 10 | 1.347 | 1.277 | 10 + 10 | 1.236 | 1.149 |
| 7 + 11 | 1.342 | 1.272 | 10 + 11 | 1.233 | 1.146 |
| 8 | 1.338 | 1.267 | 11 | 1.23 | 1.143 |
| 8 + 1 | 1.334 | 1.263 | 11 + 1 | 1.227 | 1.14 |
| 8 + 2 | 1.331 | 1.258 | 11 + 2 | 1.224 | 1.136 |
| 8 + 3 | 1.327 | 1.254 | 11 + 3 | 1.221 | 1.133 |
| 8 + 4 | 1.323 | 1.25 | 11 + 4 | 1.217 | 1.129 |
| 8 + 5 | 1.319 | 1.245 | 11 + 5 | 1.214 | 1.126 |
| 8 + 6 | 1.316 | 1.241 | 11 + 6 | 1.211 | 1.122 |
| 8 + 7 | 1.312 | 1.237 | 11 + 7 | 1.208 | 1.119 |
| 8 + 8 | 1.308 | 1.232 | 11 + 8 | 1.205 | 1.115 |
| 8 + 9 | 1.304 | 1.228 | 11 + 9 | 1.202 | 1.112 |
| 8 + 10 | 1.301 | 1.224 | 11 + 10 | 1.198 | 1.108 |
| 8 + 11 | 1.297 | 1.219 | 11 + 11 | 1.195 | 1.105 |
| 9 | 1.293 | 1.215 | 12 | 1.192 | 1.101 |
Table 3.
Sitting height Multiplier for 12+ to 15 years of age.
| Age (Years + Months) | Boys | Girls | Age (Years + Months) | Boys | Girls |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12 + 1 | 1.189 | 1.098 | 15 + 1 | 1.056 | 1.011 |
| 12 + 2 | 1.185 | 1.094 | 15 + 2 | 1.054 | 1.01 |
| 12 + 3 | 1.182 | 1.091 | 15 + 3 | 1.051 | 1.009 |
| 12 + 4 | 1.178 | 1.088 | 15 + 4 | 1.048 | 1.008 |
| 12 + 5 | 1.175 | 1.084 | 15 + 5 | 1.045 | 1.007 |
| 12 + 6 | 1.171 | 1.081 | 15 + 6 | 1.043 | 1.006 |
| 12 + 7 | 1.168 | 1.078 | 15 + 7 | 1.04 | 1.005 |
| 12 + 8 | 1.164 | 1.074 | 15 + 8 | 1.037 | 1.004 |
| 12 + 9 | 1.161 | 1.071 | 15 + 9 | 1.034 | 1.003 |
| 12 + 10 | 1.157 | 1.068 | 15 + 10 | 1.032 | 1.002 |
| 12 + 11 | 1.154 | 1.064 | 15 + 11 | 1.029 | 1.001 |
| 13 | 1.15 | 1.061 | 16 | 1.026 | 1 |
| 13 + 1 | 1.146 | 1.058 | 16 + 1 | 1.025 | |
| 13 + 2 | 1.142 | 1.056 | 16 + 2 | 1.023 | |
| 13 + 3 | 1.138 | 1.053 | 16 + 3 | 1.022 | |
| 13 + 4 | 1.133 | 1.051 | 16 + 4 | 1.021 | |
| 13 + 5 | 1.129 | 1.048 | 16 + 5 | 1.019 | |
| 13 + 6 | 1.125 | 1.046 | 16 + 6 | 1.018 | |
| 13 + 7 | 1.121 | 1.043 | 16 + 7 | 1.017 | |
| 13 + 8 | 1.117 | 1.04 | 16 + 8 | 1.015 | |
| 13 + 9 | 1.113 | 1.038 | 16 + 9 | 1.014 | |
| 13 + 10 | 1.108 | 1.035 | 16 + 10 | 1.013 | |
| 13 + 11 | 1.104 | 1.033 | 16 + 11 | 1.011 | |
| 14 | 1.1 | 1.03 | 17 | 1.01 | |
| 14 + 1 | 1.097 | 1.029 | 17 + 1 | 1.009 | |
| 14 + 2 | 1.093 | 1.027 | 17 + 2 | 1.008 | |
| 14 + 3 | 1.09 | 1.026 | 17 + 3 | 1.008 | |
| 14 + 4 | 1.086 | 1.024 | 17 + 4 | 1.007 | |
| 14 + 5 | 1.083 | 1.023 | 17 + 5 | 1.006 | |
| 14 + 6 | 1.08 | 1.021 | 17 + 6 | 1.005 | |
| 14 + 7 | 1.076 | 1.02 | 17 + 7 | 1.004 | |
| 14 + 8 | 1.073 | 1.018 | 17 + 8 | 1.003 | |
| 14 + 9 | 1.069 | 1.017 | 17 + 9 | 1.003 | |
| 14 + 10 | 1.066 | 1.015 | 17 + 10 | 1.002 | |
| 14 + 11 | 1.062 | 1.014 | 17 + 11 | 1.001 | |
| 15 | 1.059 | 1.012 | 18 | 1 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Jauregui, J.J.; Hlukha, L.P.; McClure, P.K.; Paley, D.; Shualy, M.B.; Goldberg, M.B.; Herzenberg, J.E. Multiplier Method for Predicting the Sitting Height Growth at Maturity: A Database Analysis. Children 2022, 9, 1763. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9111763
AMA Style
Jauregui JJ, Hlukha LP, McClure PK, Paley D, Shualy MB, Goldberg MB, Herzenberg JE. Multiplier Method for Predicting the Sitting Height Growth at Maturity: A Database Analysis. Children. 2022; 9(11):1763. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9111763
Chicago/Turabian StyleJauregui, Julio J., Larysa P. Hlukha, Philip K. McClure, Dror Paley, Mordchai B. Shualy, Maya B. Goldberg, and John E. Herzenberg. 2022. "Multiplier Method for Predicting the Sitting Height Growth at Maturity: A Database Analysis" Children 9, no. 11: 1763. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9111763
APA StyleJauregui, J. J., Hlukha, L. P., McClure, P. K., Paley, D., Shualy, M. B., Goldberg, M. B., & Herzenberg, J. E. (2022). Multiplier Method for Predicting the Sitting Height Growth at Maturity: A Database Analysis. Children, 9(11), 1763. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9111763
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
