ArticleAnnals of human biology2017
An anthropometric survey of US pre-term and full-term neonates.
Article in Annals of human biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing individual nutrition in preterm very low birth weight infants: double-blinded randomized controlled trial.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2020Trial
- Bedside ultrasound imaging to measure muscle cross-sectional area in preterm and term infants: a feasibility study.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026Article
- Validation and human factor analysis study of an infant weight estimation device.BMC pediatrics · 2020Article
- Reference Values for Abdominal Circumference in Premature Infants.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2020Article
- Adjustable feedings plus accurate serial length measurements decrease discharge weight-length disproportion in very preterm infants: quality improvement project.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2019Article
- A Weight Estimation Strategy for Preterm and Full-Term Infants.Global pediatric health · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAnthropometric data prove valuable for screening and monitoring various medical conditions. In young infants, however, only weight, length and head circumference are represented in publicly accessible databases.
aimTo characterise length and circumferential measures in pre-term and full-term infants up to 90 days post-natal. SUBJECTS AND
methodsIn eight US medical centres, trained raters recorded humeral, ulnar, femoral, tibial and fibular lengths along with mid-upper arm, mid-thigh, chest, abdominal and neck circumference. Data were pooled by post-menstrual age into 1-week intervals and population curves created using the lambda, mu and sigma (LMS) method. Goodness-of-fit was assessed by examining de-trended quantile-quantile plots, Q statistics and fitted centiles overlaid on empirical centiles.
resultsIn total, 2097 infants were enrolled in this study with a mean ± SD gestational age and post-natal age of 37.1 ± 3.3 weeks and 27.3 ± 25.3 days, respectively. A re-scale option was used to describe all curves. The resultant models reliably characterised anthropometric measures from 33-52 weeks PMA, with less certainty at the extremes (27-55 weeks).
conclusionThe population curves generated under this investigation expand existing reference data on a comprehensive set of anthropometric traits in infants through the first 90 days post-natal.
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.