ArticlePloS one2013
Growth monitoring: a survey of current practices of primary care paediatricians in Europe.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development, internal and external evaluation of an artificial intelligence algorithm for child growth monitoring in primary care.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Evaluating national guidelines for monitoring early growth using routinely collected data in Bergen, Norway.Scandinavian journal of public health · 2024Article
- Growth Monitoring Practice and Associated Factors Among Health Professionals at Public Health Facilities of Bahir Dar Health Centers, Northwest Ethiopia, 2021.Pediatric health, medicine and therapeutics · 2022Article
- Evaluating routine pediatric growth measurement as a screening tool for overweight and obese status.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2021Article
- Article
- Acute herpes zoster and post herpetic neuralgia in primary care: a study of diagnosis, treatment and cost.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2018Article
- Priority target conditions for algorithms for monitoring children's growth: Interdisciplinary consensus.PloS one · 2017Article
- Should the WHO growth charts be used in France?PloS one · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe aimed to study current practices in growth monitoring by European primary care paediatricians and to explore their perceived needs in this field.
methodsWe developed a cross-sectional, anonymous on-line survey and contacted primary care paediatricians listed in national directories in the 18 European countries with a confederation of primary care paediatricians. Paediatricians participated in the survey between April and September 2011.
resultsOf the 1,198 paediatricians from 11 European countries (response rate 13%) who participated, 29% used the 2006 World Health Organization Multicentre Growth Reference Study growth charts, 69% used national growth charts; 61% used software to draw growth charts and 79% did not use a formal algorithm to detect abnormal growth on growth charts. Among the 21% of paediatricians who used algorithms, many used non-algorithmic simple thresholds for height and weight and none used the algorithms published in the international literature. In all, 69% of paediatricians declared that a validated algorithm to monitor growth would be useful in daily practice. We found important between-country variations.
conclusionThe varied growth-monitoring practices declared by primary care paediatricians reveals the need for standardization and evidence-based algorithms to define abnormal growth and the development of software that would use such algorithms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.