Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17908712›Full record

ArticleArchives of disease in childhood2008

Implications of adopting the WHO 2006 Child Growth Standard in the UK: two prospective cohort studies.

C Wright, R Lakshman, P Emmett, K K Ong

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of disease in childhood, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
14.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 124 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Fit to WHO weight standard of European infants over time.Archives of disease in childhood · 2016
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

C WrightDivision of Developmental Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
R Lakshman
P Emmett
K K Ong
MRC Epidemiology Unit · GBUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of Glasgow · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G9815508Medical Research Council MC_EX_MR/J000361/1Medical Research Council MC_U106179472Medical Research Council MR/J000361/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe WHO 2006 Child Growth Standard is based on data from international optimally nourished breastfed infants from birth to age 5 years.

objectiveTo assess the potential effect of its use on weight and growth monitoring of UK children.

participantsFull-term members of two population-based UK birth cohorts: the Children in Focus sub-cohort of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) (n = 1335) and the Gateshead Millennium Baby Study (GMS; n = 923).

designGrowth data from birth to 5 years were converted into z-scores relative to the WHO 2006 standard.

resultsCompared with the WHO standard, both UK cohorts had higher birth weights (mean z-scores: GMS, 0.17; ALSPAC, 0.34) and ALSPAC had higher birth lengths. After birth, length showed a good fit at all ages. By 2-4 months, both cohorts were similar in weight to the WHO median (mean WHO weight z-score at 4 months: GMS, 0.01; ALSPAC, -0.07), but thereafter the UK cohorts were heavier (mean WHO weight z-score at 12 months: GMS, 0.57; ALSPAC, 0.65). At age 12 months, the risk of being classified as underweight (weight <2nd centile) was considerably lower according to the WHO standard than by the UK 1990 Growth Reference (RR = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.07 to 0.32), and the risk of being classified as obese at 4-5 years (body mass index >98th centile) was slightly increased (RR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.78).

conclusionsAdoption of the WHO 2006 Growth Charts would set a markedly lower standard of weight gain beyond the age of 4 months for UK infants and could support efforts to avoid future childhood obesity. However, the WHO standard is not representative of size at birth in the UK.

Indexed as

GrowthAgingAnthropometryBirth WeightBody WeightChild, PreschoolCohort StudiesHumansInfantInfant, NewbornObesityProspective StudiesReference ValuesThinnessUnited KingdomWeight Gain

Identifiers

PMID17908712
PMCPMC2532956
OpenAlexW2140147636

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.