Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26444012›Full record

ArticleBMC pediatrics2015

Using height-for-age differences (HAD) instead of height-for-age z-scores (HAZ) for the meaningful measurement of population-level catch-up in linear growth in children less than 5 years of age.

Jef L Leroy, Marie Ruel, Jean-Pierre Habicht, Edward A Frongillo

Open access · goldAbstract read
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 66 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

66 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 136 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Time to Stop Focusing on Catch-Up Growth.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Article

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jef L LeroyPoverty, Health, and Nutrition Division, International Food Policy Research Institute, 2033 K Street NW, Washington, DC, 20006, USA. j.leroy@cgiar.org.
Marie RuelPoverty, Health, and Nutrition Division, International Food Policy Research Institute, 2033 K Street NW, Washington, DC, 20006, USA. m.ruel@cgiar.org.
Jean-Pierre HabichtDivision of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University, Savage Hall, Ithaca, NY, USA. jh48@cornell.edu.
Edward A FrongilloArnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA. efrongillo@sc.edu.
International Food Policy Research Institute · USCornell University · USUniversity of South Carolina · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence from studies conducted in nutritionally deprived children in low- and middle-income countries (LIMC) in past decades showed little or no population-level catch-up in linear growth (mostly defined as reductions in the absolute height deficit) after 2 years of age. Recent studies, however, have reported population-level catch-up growth in children, defined as positive changes in mean height-for-age z-scores (HAZ). The aim of this paper was to assess whether population-level catch-up in linear growth is found when height-for-age difference (HAD: child's height compared to standard, expressed in centimeters) is used instead of HAZ. Our premise is that HAZ is inappropriate to measure changes in linear growth over time because they are constructed using standard deviations from cross-sectional data.

methodsWe compare changes in growth in populations of children between 2 and 5 years using HAD vs. HAZ using cross-sectional data from 6 Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) and longitudinal data from the Young Lives and the Consortium on Health-Orientated Research in Transitional Societies (COHORTS) studies.

resultsUsing HAD, we find not only an absence of population-level catch-up in linear growth, but a continued deterioration reflected in a decrease in mean HAD between 2 and 5 years; by contrast, HAZ shows either no change (DHS surveys) or an improvement in mean HAZ (some of the longitudinal data). Population-level growth velocity was also lower than expected (based on standards) in all four Young Lives data sets, confirming the absence of catch-up growth in height. DISCUSSION: We show no evidence of population-level catch-up in linear growth in children between 2 to 5 years of age when using HAD (a measure more appropriate than HAZ to document changes as populations of children age), but a continued deterioration reflected in a decrease in mean HAD.

conclusionsThe continued widening of the absolute height deficit after 2 years of age does not challenge the critical importance of investing in improving nutrition during the first 1000 days (i.e., from conception to 2 years of age), but raises a number of research questions including how to prevent continued deterioration and what is the potential of children to benefit from nutrition interventions after 2 years of age. Preventing, rather than reversing linear growth retardation remains the priority for reducing the global burden of malnutritionworldwide.

Indexed as

Body HeightAfricaAge FactorsAsiaChild Nutrition DisordersChild, PreschoolCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGrowth DisordersHealth SurveysHumansInfantInfant Nutrition DisordersLatin AmericaMalePoverty

Identifiers

PMID26444012
PMCPMC4595313
OpenAlexW2120041496

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.