ArticleBMC pediatrics2020
Validation and human factor analysis study of an infant weight estimation device.
Article in BMC pediatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pediatric Pharmacotherapy: Why the Fundamentals (Still) Matter.The journal of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics : JPPT : the official journal of PPAG · 2026Article
- Improving birth weight measurement and recording practices in Kenya and Tanzania: a prospective intervention study with historical controls.Population health metrics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWeight is critical for the medical management of infants; however, scales can be unavailable or inaccessible in some practice settings. We recently developed and validated a robust infant weight estimation method based on chest circumference (CC) and head circumference (HC). This study was designed to determine the human factors (HF) experience with, and predictive performance of, an infant weight estimation device that implements this method.
methodsProspective, multi-center, observational, masked study of 486 preterm and term infants (0-90 days) assessed by 15 raters. Raters measured the infant using calibrated scales/measures and masked versions of the device. Raters also evaluated critical tasks associated with device use. Mean error (ME) and mean percentage error (MPE) were used to assess predictive performance.
resultAmong 486 infants enrolled (36.8 ± 4.0 weeks gestational age, 31.5 ± 28.6 days postnatal age), predicted weight correlated highly with actual weight (r = 0.97, ME: - 69 ± 257 g, MPE: - 1.3 ± 6.9%). Predicted weight was within 10 and 15% of actual weight in 86 and 99%, of infants. HF errors were low, 0.1-0.8% depending on task. In all cases raters were confident or very confident in their measurements.
conclusionThe device was statistically equivalent to the method on which it was based and approximated weight with acceptable variance from the true weight. HF data suggest the device is easy to use. This device can be used to estimate weight in infants when calibrated scales are impractical or unavailable.
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.