ArticleIndian journal of pediatrics2015
Differential estimates of underweight-for-age and growth related morbidity according to different growth standards in Indian children.
Article in Indian journal of pediatrics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of WHO 2006 Growth Standards and Synthetic Indian References in Assessing Growth in Normal Children and Children with Growth-Related Disorders.Indian journal of endocrinology and metabolismArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the four different growth standards currently used in India [WHO (World Health Organization); NCHS (National Center for Health Statistics); ICDS (Integrated Child Development Scheme); IAP (Indian Academy of Pediatrics)] and determine which better predicts growth related morbidity in children after 3 mo of follow-up.
methodsThe present cohort study was done at Indira Gandhi Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur, India. Eligible children were those who had; > 3 unformed stools in the prior 24 h, the duration of their diarrhea was up to 72 h; and they were able to accept oral fluids or feeds. Main outcome measures were classification of the malnutrition status as per each of the four growth standards by weight-for-age and weight-for-height z scores at three months follow-up.
resultsA total of 724 children were included. Mean age was 17.8 mo; 40.6 % were ≤ 12 mo and 59.1 % were males. Estimates of malnourished varied by the four standards, (NCHS, 62.2 % to IAP, 7.4 %). When separated into 'malnourished' and 'severely malnourished' categories, differences were greater, (NCHS, 27.9 % vs. ICDS, 1.9 %). Overall agreement was 'fair' (0.2435, z = 22.21, p = 0.0000). After follow-up, children who were 'severely malnourished' gained more weight than the 'malnourished'group; however, mean weight differed by the four charts [e.g., IAP 767 g (SD ± 611 g), vs. ICDS 884.7 g (SD ± 778 g)].
conclusionsGrowth standards reported different rates of malnourished categories. The utility of the standards to detect children who are constitutionally vs. pathologically small is questionable. Monitoring the nutritional status of children at both the individual level and at population level has implications for clinical practice, policy development and resource allocation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24871075What 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.