ArticleBMC research notes2022
Comparative study of stunting measurement in children using WHO procedure and Growth Length Mat in Ghana.
Article in BMC research notes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveHeight data is not useful immediately without further processing. The Growth Length Mat (Stunting Mat) was designed to stunting directly. However, the Mat has not been validated for use in Ghana. This study compared stunting measured with the Mat and stunting measured following the WHO recommended procedure. We sampled 163 children aged 6-24 months in the Bono region of Ghana. We also explored the acceptability and interpretability of the two procedures among mothers and healthcare givers.
resultsThe prevalence of stunting was 3.7% and 11.7% using the Mat and WHO procedures respectively. The Growth Length Mat had very low sensitivity (21.0%) but high specificity (98.6%) of detecting stunting in children. However, in younger aged children, the Mat was more accurate in detecting stunting. Both healthcare workers and caregivers found it easy to interpret the stunting status of children using the Mat. We conclude that the Growth Length Mat was less sensitive at detecting child stunting compared to the current gold standard of measuring stunting in younger children. There are possibilities to improve the accuracy and utility of the Mat for measuring stunting in low-resource settings by re-designing the mat to be more age appropriate.
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.