Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25928804›Full record

ArticleBMC pediatrics2015

Validation of the foot length measure as an alternative tool to identify low birth weight and preterm babies in a low-resource setting like Nepal: a cross-sectional study.

Ashish Kc, Viktoria Nelin, Ravi Vitrakoti, Surabhi Aryal, Mats Målqvist

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pediatrics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Trial
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Fetal foot length at delivery as a tool for determining gestation length in non-macerated stillbirths.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2017
    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

5 authors.

Ashish KcInternational Maternal and Child Health, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, University Hospital, Uppsala, SE-751 85, Sweden. aaashis7@yahoo.com.
Viktoria NelinInternational Maternal and Child Health, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, University Hospital, Uppsala, SE-751 85, Sweden. viktorianelin@gmail.com.
Ravi VitrakotiFoundation for Maternal and Child Health Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal. ravikpil@gmail.com.
Surabhi AryalCollege of Medical Sciences, Bharatpur, Nepal. surabhiaryal@hotmail.com.
Mats MålqvistInternational Maternal and Child Health, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, University Hospital, Uppsala, SE-751 85, Sweden. mats.malqvist@kbh.uu.se.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe majority of infants who die in the neonatal period are born with a low birth weight (LBW, <2500 grams), or prematurely (before 37 weeks). Most deaths among these infants could be prevented with simple, low-cost interventions like kangaroo mother care (KMC) or prevention and early identification of infection. It is difficult, however, to determine birth weight and gestational age in community settings, and therefore necessary to find an appropriate alternative screening tool that can identify LBW and preterm infants.

methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted at a tertiary hospital in Nepal to compare the validity of using three different foot length measurement methods (plastic ruler, measuring tape, and paper footprint) as screening tools for identifying babies with birth weights <2000 grams or infants born preterm (<37 weeks). LBW was defined as less than 2000 grams because of the implication for use of KMC for these infants. Non-parametric receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis was completed to determine which measurement method best predicted LBW and preterm birth. For the method that was the best predictor for each outcome (i.e. highest area under the curve), further analyses were completed to determine sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and predictive values of an operational screening cutoff to predict LBW or preterm birth in this setting.

resultsOf the 811 infants included in this study, 30 infants had LBW and 54 were born preterm. The plastic ruler was the measurement method with the highest area under the curve, and thus predictive score for estimating both outcomes, so operational cutoffs were identified based on this method. An operational cutoff of 7.2 cm was identified to screen for infants weighing <2000 grams at birth (sensitivity: 75.9%, specificity: 90.3%), and 7.8 cm was determined as the operational cutoff to identify preterm infants (sensitivity: 76.9%, specificity: 53.9%).

conclusionsIn Nepal, at least in community settings, foot length measurement with a hard ruler may be a valid proxy to identify at-risk infants when birth weight or gestational age is unavailable. Further studies and piloting should be conducted to identify exact cutoffs that can be used within community settings.

Indexed as

Infant, Low Birth WeightInfant, PrematureAnthropometryCross-Sectional StudiesDeveloping CountriesFemaleFootHumansInfant, NewbornMaleNepalSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID25928804
PMCPMC4403672

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.