Background Vitamin D is important for bone health; in 2014 it was the fifth most commonly ordered laboratory test among Medicare Part B payments. Objectives The aim of this study was to describe vitamin D status in the US population in 2011–2014 and trends from 2003 to 2014. Methods We used serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D data from NHANES 2011–2014 (n = 16,180), and estimated the prevalence at risk of deficiency (<30 nmol/L) or prevalence at risk of inadequacy (30–49 nmol/L) by age, sex, race and Hispanic origin, and dietary intake of vitamin D. We also present trends between 2003 and 2014. Results In 2011–2014, the percentage aged ≥1 y at risk of vitamin D deficiency or inadequacy was 5.0% (95% CI: 4.1%, 6.2%) and 18.3% (95% CI: 16.2%, 20.6%). The prevalence of at risk of deficiency was lowest among children aged 1–5 y (0.5%; 95% CI: 0.3%, 1.1%), peaked among adults aged 20–39 y (7.6%; 95% CI: 6.0%, 9.6%), and fell to 2.9% (95% CI: 2.0%, 4.0%) among adults aged ≥60 y; the prevalence of at risk of inadequacy was similar. The prevalence of at risk of deficiency was higher among non-Hispanic black (17.5%; 95% CI: 15.2%, 20.0%) than among non-Hispanic Asian (7.6%; 95% CI: 5.9%, 9.9%), non-Hispanic white (2.1%; 95% CI: 1.5%, 2.7%), and Hispanic (5.9%; 95% CI: 4.4%, 7.8%) persons; the prevalence of at risk of inadequacy was similar. Persons with higher vitamin D dietary intake or who used supplements had lower prevalences of at risk of deficiency or inadequacy. From 2003 to 2014 there was no change in the risk of vitamin D deficiency; the risk of inadequacy declined from 21.0% (95% CI: 17.9%, 24.5%) to 17.7% (95% CI: 16.0%, 19.7%). Conclusion The prevalence of at risk of vitamin D deficiency in the United States remained stable from 2003 to 2014; at risk of inadequacy declined. Differences in vitamin D status by race and Hispanic origin warrant additional investigation.

Objective The aim of this study was to compare national estimates of self‐reported and measured height and weight, BMI, and obesity prevalence among adults from US surveys. Methods Self‐reported height and weight data came from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the National Health Interview Survey, and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System for the years 1999 to 2016. Measured height and weight data were available from NHANES. BMI was calculated from height and weight; obesity was defined as BMI ≥ 30. Results In all three surveys, mean self‐reported height was higher than mean measured height in NHANES for both men and women. Mean BMI from self‐reported data was lower than mean BMI from measured data across all surveys. For women, mean self‐reported weight, BMI, and obesity prevalence in the National Health Interview Survey and Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System were lower than self‐report in NHANES. The distribution of BMI was narrower for self‐reported than for measured data, leading to lower estimates of obesity prevalence. Conclusions Self‐reported height, weight, BMI, and obesity prevalence were not identical across the three surveys, particularly for women. Patterns of misreporting of height and weight and their effects on BMI and obesity prevalence are complex.

This report explains the creation of the 2017–March 2020 Pre-Pandemic Data Files, provides recommendations for and limitations of the files’ use, and presents prevalence estimates for select health outcomes based on the files.

Background Following implementation in 2009–2010 to the oral health component for the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), a full-mouth periodontal examination was continued during 2011–2014. Additionally, a comprehensive dental caries assessment was re-introduced in 2011 after a 6-year absence from NHANES. This report provides oral health content information and results of dental examiner reliability statistics for key intraoral assessments conducted by dentists during 2011–2014. Methods During the 2011–2014 NHANES 17,463 persons age 1 and older representing the US civilian, non-institutionalized population received an oral health examination. From this group, 387 individuals underwent a repeat examination conducted by the survey reference examiner. A combination of examiner training and calibration, electronic data capture, and ongoing performance evaluation with statistical monitoring was used to ensure conformance with NHANES protocols and data comparability to prior data collection periods. Results During 2011–2014, the Kappa statistics for the tooth count assessment ranged from 0.96 to 1.00, for untreated dental caries Kappa scores were 0.93 to 1.00. The overall Kappa statistics for identifying combined moderate-severe periodontitis using the CDC/AAP case definition was 0.66 and 0.69 with percent agreement of 83 to 85% during 2011–2014. When evaluating inter-examiner agreement using information collected from 3 periodontal sites for comparability to the NHANES 2003–04 periodontal examination protocols, Kappa scores for combined moderate-severe periodontitis was 0.65 and 0.80 during 2011–2014. For total mean attachment loss and pocket depth across all 6 periodontal sites, the inter-class coefficients (ICCs) ranged from 0.80–0.90 and 0.79–0.86 respectively. Site-specific mean attachment loss ICCs were generally higher for the 4 interproximal measurements compared to the 2 mid-site probing measurements and this observation was similar in 2009–2010. Conclusion During 2011–2014, results overall indicate a high level of data quality and substantial examiner reliability for tooth count and dentition; reliability for periodontal disease, across various assessments, was at least moderate. When comparing the 2011–2014 examiner performance to findings from 2003 to 2004, comparable concordance between the examiners and the reference examiner exists.