ArticleCurrent developments in nutrition2022
Acceptability and Experiences with the Use of 3D Scans to Measure Anthropometry of Young Children in Surveys and Surveillance Systems from the Perspective of Field Teams and Caregivers.
Article in Current developments in nutrition, 2022. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence in public health-challenges and opportunities.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2026Review
- Accuracy of a smartphone-based 3D imaging tool for height measurement and stunting detection among children 24-59 months of age in Nepal: a validation study.The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-driven anthropometric assessment for young children: evaluating the accuracy and practicality of a digital image-based length and weight prediction tool.BMJ health & care informatics · 2025Observational
- Portable digital devices for paediatric height and length measurement: A scoping review and target product profile matching analysis.PloS one · 2023Article
- Article
- Accuracy of Fully Automated 3D Imaging System for Child Anthropometry in a Low-Resource Setting: Effectiveness Evaluation in Malakal, South Sudan.JMIR biomedical engineering · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Portable systems using three-dimensional (3D) scan data to calculate young child anthropometry measurements in population-based surveys and surveillance systems lack acceptability data from field workers and caregivers. Objective: The aim was to assess acceptability and experiences with 3D scans measuring child aged 0-59 mo anthropometry in population-based surveys and surveillance systems in Guatemala, Kenya, and China (0-23 mo only) among field teams and caregivers of young children as secondary objectives of an external effectiveness evaluation. Methods: Manual data were collected twice and 12 images captured per child by anthropometrist/expert and assistant (AEA) field teams (individuals/country, Results: Most AEAs were female with secondary or higher education. Approximately 80-90% of caregivers were the child's mother. To collect all anthropometry data, 62.1% of the 29 AEAs preferred scan, while 31% preferred manual methods. In FGDs, a key barrier for manual and scan methods was lack of child cooperation. Across countries, approximately 30% to almost 50% of caregivers said their child was bothered by each manual and scan method, while ≥95% of caregivers were willing to have their child measured by scans in the future. Conclusions: Use of 3D scans to calculate anthropometry measurements was generally at least as acceptable as manual anthropometry measurement among AEA field workers and caregivers of young children aged <60 mo, and in some cases preferred.
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.