Observational studyMaternal & child nutrition2017
Health staff understanding, application, and interpretation of growth charts in Nigeria.
Observational study in Maternal & child nutrition, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of an mHealth tool to improve nutritional assessment among infants under 6 months in paediatric development clinics in rural Rwanda: Quasi-experimental study.Maternal & child nutrition · 2021Article
- Nutritional evaluation and growth of infants in a Rwandan neonatal follow-up clinic.Maternal & child nutrition · 2020Article
- Health staff understanding, application, and interpretation of growth charts in Nigeria.Maternal & child nutrition · 2017Observational
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
We aimed to compare plotting accuracy and interpretation of weight gain patterns in average and small infants on road-to-health (RTH) and the new World Health Organization (WHO) growth charts in Enugu, Nigeria. Child health staff plotted standard weights on both formats. Twelve plotted charts were created, permutating three different weight trajectories (fast, steady, and slow) ending at two attained weights (average and small), with each plotted on both chart formats. Respondents were shown four of these charts and asked to describe the weight gain pattern shown and what action this pattern would prompt. There were 222 respondents, of whom 78% were hospital based; 54% were nurses, 32% medical doctors, and 13% nutritionists. Plotting accuracy was good on both the WHO and RTH charts, but rating of weight gain was generally poor. On the RTH chart, slow weight gain was correctly recognized in only 19% average and 35% small infants, and responses were not significantly associated with the pattern shown. On the WHO charts, slow weight gain was correctly recognized in 40% average and 65% small infants (p = .002 and <.001), but they were also more likely to rate small children with normal growth as slow weight gain. In a logistic regression model, final weight predicted a slow weight gain rating more strongly (OR = 2.4; 1.8-3.2) than an actual slow weight gain pattern (OR 1.8; 1.1-1.6). Health staff seemed unable to recognize slow weight gain and were influenced more by current weight than actual weight gain pattern, though the new WHO format improved recognition.
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.