Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25142865›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2014

The reliability of a newborn foot length measurement tool used by community volunteers to identify low birth weight or premature babies born at home in southern Tanzania.

Tanya Marchant, Suzanne Penfold, Elibariki Mkumbo, Donat Shamba, Jennie Jaribu, Fatuma Manzi, Joanna Schellenberg

Open access · goldAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.9field-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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  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. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Article
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Tanya MarchantFaculty of Infectious and Tropical Disease, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel St, London WC1E 7HT, UK. Tanya.Marchant@lshtm.ac.uk.
Suzanne Penfold
Elibariki Mkumbo
Donat Shamba
Jennie Jaribu
Fatuma Manzi
Joanna Schellenberg
Ifakara Health Institute · TZUniversity of London · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K012126/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLow birthweight babies need extra care, and families need to know whether their newborn is low birthweight in settings where many births are at home and weighing scales are largely absent. In the context of a trial to improve newborn health in southern Tanzania, a counselling card was developed that incorporated a newborn foot length measurement tool to screen newborns for low birth weight and prematurity. This was used by community volunteers at home visits and shows a scale picture of a newborn foot with markers for a 'short foot' (<8 cm). The tool built on previous hospital based research that found newborn foot length <8 cm to have sensitivity and specificity to identify low birthweight (<2500 g) of 87% and 60% respectively.

methodsReliability of the tool used by community volunteers to identify newborns with short feet was tested. Between July-December 2010 a researcher accompanied volunteers to the homes of babies younger than seven days and conducted paired measures of newborn foot length using the counselling card tool and using a plastic ruler. Intra-method reliability of foot length measures was assessed using kappa scores, and differences between measurers were analysed using Bland and Altman plots.

results142 paired measures were conducted. The kappa statistic for the foot length tool to classify newborns as having small feet indicated that it was moderately reliable when applied by volunteers, with a kappa score of 0.53 (95% confidence interval 0.40 - 0.66) . Examination of differences revealed that community volunteers systematically underestimated the length of newborn feet compared to the researcher (mean difference -0.26 cm (95% confidence interval -0.31-0.22), thus overestimating the number of newborns needing extra care.

conclusionsThe newborn foot length tool used by community volunteers to identify small babies born at home was moderately reliable in southern Tanzania where a large number of births occur at home and scales are not available. Newborn foot length is not the best anthropometric proxy for birthweight but was simple to implement at home in the first days of life when the risk of newborn death is highest.

Indexed as

Birth WeightBody SizeFootInfant, Low Birth WeightInfant, PrematureAdultAnthropometryFemaleHome ChildbirthHouse CallsHumansInfant, NewbornInfant, Small for Gestational AgeMaleReproducibility of ResultsResidence Characteristics

Identifiers

PMID25142865
PMCPMC4152587
OpenAlexW2114165661

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.