ArticleIndian journal of endocrinology and metabolism
Comparison of Nutritional Status of Under-Five Indian Children (NFHS 4 Data) Using WHO 2006 Charts and 2019 Indian Synthetic Charts.
Article in Indian journal of endocrinology and metabolism. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Double Burden of Malnutrition in Under-Five Children (NFHS-5 Data) Using Extended CIAF: WHO 2006 Growth Standard Versus 2019 Indian Growth References.Indian pediatrics · 2025Article
- Comparison of Nutritional Status of Healthy Under-Five Indian Children Using Composite Index of Anthropometric Failure on WHO 2006 versus 2019 Indian Synthetic Growth Charts.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2024Observational
- Association of Child Growth Failure Indicators With Household Sanitation Practices in India (1998-2021): Spatiotemporal Observational Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Observational
- Global relevance of MGRS growth standards: the case of India.BMJ paediatrics open · 2024Review
- Should India adopt a country-specific growth reference to measure undernutrition among its children?The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia · 2023Article
- Comparison of WHO 2006 Growth Standards and Synthetic Indian References in Assessing Growth in Normal Children and Children with Growth-Related Disorders.Indian journal of endocrinology and metabolismArticle
- Growth Prediction of Under-5 Children Using Statistical Models for Eastern Region of India.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social MedicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere is a growing body of evidence against using World Health Organization (WHO) charts for developing nations. Our objectives were: 1) To compare nutritional status of <5-year-old Indian children using WHO charts and synthetic Indian charts (SC) 2019. 2) To study nutritional status across wealth index categories. 3) To study nutritional status of predominantly breast-fed infants <6 months of age using both charts. MATERIALS AND
methodsData from 4
resultsStunting, wasting, and underweight were significantly higher using WHO charts. The prevalence of stunting (height for age) and wasting (WHZ) changed from high to medium and critical to poor when the reference changed from WHO to SC. All Z-scores showed an improving trend with increasing wealth index. On SC, almost all WHZ (wasting) from the richest to poorer were >-0.5 (clinically significant), whereas on WHO charts all wealth classes had WHZ <-0.5. For children under the age of 6 months, WHZ from richest to poorest was between -0.97 and -0.89 by WHO and 0.27 and 0.38 by SC.
conclusionsUse of Indian synthetic growth charts for growth monitoring of under-five children may be more appropriate; infants under 6 months and children from well off families performed well on these charts.
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.