ArticleBMJ open2015
Comparison of the China growth charts with the WHO growth standards in assessing malnutrition of children.
Article in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of the effects of different growth standards on infants in Urban Shanghai: a cluster-randomized controlled trial.Chinese medical journal · 2019Trial
- Trial
- Comparison of WHO and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Growth References for Classifying Height and Weight Status in Young Children in the United States-Affiliated Pacific.Current developments in nutrition · 2026Article
- Effects of feeding patterns during the first 6 months on weight development of infants ages 0-12 months: a longitudinal study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Growth and development of children in China: achievements, problems and prospects.World journal of pediatrics : WJP · 2024Article
- Comparison of National Growth Standards for Turkish Infants and Children with World Health Organization Growth StandardsJournal of clinical research in pediatric endocrinology · 2022Article
- Weight gain in children from birth to 10 years on antiretroviral treatment.Southern African journal of HIV medicine · 2022Article
- Chinese Color Nest Project : An accelerated longitudinal brain-mind cohort.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2021Review
- Comparative study on the early growth of preterm infants with the World Health Organization growth standards and the China growth charts.Pediatrics international : official journal of the Japan Pediatric Society · 2021Article
- Article
- Differences between WHO Growth Standards and China Growth Standards in Assessing the Nutritional Status of Children Aged 0-36 Months Old.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Distinct pituitary hormone levels of 184 Chinese children and adolescents with multiple pituitary hormone deficiency: a single-centre study.BMC pediatrics · 2019Article
- Growth of HIV-uninfected children born to HIV-infected mothers in Guangdong, China: an 18-month longitudinal follow-up study.BMC pediatrics · 2019Article
- The Use of Different International References to Assess Child Anthropometric Status in a Malaysian Population.The Journal of pediatrics · 2017Article
- Field Testing of Synthetic Growth Charts in 1-60-Month-Old Indian Children.Indian journal of endocrinology and metabolismArticle
- Growth reference for Saudi preschool children: LMS parameters and percentiles.Annals of Saudi medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the difference between the China growth reference and the WHO growth standards in assessing malnutrition of children under 5 years. SETTINGS: The households selected from 31 provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities in mainland China (except Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao).
participantsHouseholds were selected by using a stratified, multistage probability cluster sampling. Children under 5 years of age in the selected households were recruited (n=15,886). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Underweight, stunting, wasting, overweight and obesity.
resultsAccording to the China growth reference, the prevalence of underweight (8.7% vs 4.8%), stunting (17.2% vs 16.1%) and wasting (4.4% vs 3%) was significantly higher than that based on the WHO growth standards, respectively (p<0.001); the prevalence of overweight was lower than that based on the WHO growth standards (9.4% vs 10.2%, p<0.001). In most cases, the prevalence of undernutrition assessed by using the China growth reference was significantly higher. However, the prevalence of overweight was significantly lower by using China charts for boys aged 3-4, 6, 8, 10, 12-18 and 24 months.
conclusionsThe WHO growth standards could be more conservative in undernutrition estimation and more applicable for international comparison for Chinese children. Future researches are warranted for using the WHO growth standards within those countries with local growth charts when there are distinct differences between the two.
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.