ArticleCadernos de saude publica2023
Trends of height-for-age Z-scores according to age among Brazilian children under 5 years old from 2006 to 2019.
Article in Cadernos de saude publica, 2023. 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, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors Associated with Growth and Weight Status in Indigenous Children Under 5 Years of Age in Northeastern Brazil.Maternal and child health journal · 2026Article
- Brazilian National Survey on Child Nutrition: evidence for food and nutrition policies.Cadernos de saude publica · 2023Article
- Framing poor diet quality as malnutrition: the Brazilian National Survey on Child Nutrition (ENANI-2019).Cadernos de saude publica · 2023Article
- Malnutrition in mother-child dyads in the Brazilian National Survey on Child Nutrition (ENANI-2019).Cadernos de saude publica · 2023Article
- The authors reply.Cadernos de saude publica · 2023Article
- Nutrition transition in Brazilian children under 5 years old from 2006 to 2019.Cadernos de saude publica · 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
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compared the distribution of stunting and height-for-age (HAZ) Z-scores among age groups in data from the Brazilian National Survey on Demography and Health of Women and Children (PNDS 2006) and the Brazilian National Survey on Child Nutrition (ENANI-2019). The final sample comprised 4,408 and 14,553 children < 59 months of age in the PNDS 2006 and ENANI-2019, respectively. Children with HAZ scores < -2 according to the World Health Organization (WHO) growth standard were classified as stunted. Prevalence, 95% confidence intervals (95%CI), means, and standard deviations were estimated for Brazil and according to age. The distribution of HAZ scores at each age (in months) was estimated using the svysmooth function of the R survey package. Analyses considered the complex sampling design of the studies. Statistical differences were determined by analyzing the 95%CI of the overlap of point estimates. From 2006 to 2019, the prevalence of stunting for children < 12 months of age increased from 4.7% to 9%. As expected, the smoothed curves showed a higher mean HAZ score for children < 24 months of age in 2006 than in 2019 with no overlap of 95%CI among children aged 6-12 months. For children ≥ 24 months of age, we observed a higher mean HAZ score in 2019. Although the prevalence of stunting among children < 59 months of age was similar between 2006 and 2019, mean HAZ scores among children ≥ 24 months of age increased, whereas the mean HAZ score among children < 24 months of age decreased. Considering the deterioration in living conditions and the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, we expect a greater prevalence of stunting in Brazil in the near future.
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.