Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21119695›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2011

How did babies grow 100 years ago?

L T Weaver

Abstract readHistorical ArticleReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A Systematic Review to Reassess the Formula for Early Life Growth.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026
    Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

L T WeaverDepartment of Child Health, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK. lweaver@clinmed.gla.ac.uk
University of Glasgow · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rates and patterns of growth in weight of European and North American infants have changed over the last 100 years. Since the development and first use of growth charts for postnatal health surveillance a century ago, there appears to have been an increase in the weight of 1-year olds of about 1 kg. Taking into account the higher past rates of infant morbidity and mortality, and poorer quality of artificial feeds, this change is likely to be another expression of the secular increase in physical stature consequent on improved hygiene and nutrition. Using the new WHO (World Health Organisation) standards of infant weight growth, this secular change can be observed for both breast-fed and formula-fed babies. The slower weight growth of the former, both now and in the past compared with modern formula-fed babies, may have implications of our understanding of the risk factors for obesity and cardiovascular disease. The variability of infant growth in time and space, and the plasticity of developmental processes during the life course (fetal life, infancy, puberty and reproduction), means that the WHO infant growth standard should not alone be regarded as an ideal growth trajectory for all babies.

Indexed as

Child DevelopmentGrowth ChartsInfant Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaAge FactorsBreast FeedingEuropeHistory, 20th CenturyHumansInfantInfant WelfareNorth AmericaObesityWorld Health Organization

Identifiers

PMID21119695
OpenAlexW1942181442

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.