ArticlePloS one2023
Comparing the accuracy of an ultrasound height measurement device with a wooden measurement board among children aged 2-5 years in rural Lao People's Democratic Republic: A methods-comparison study.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHeight is a key component of nutrition assessments in children from limited-resource settings. This study aimed to assess whether handheld digital ultrasound devices for measuring children's height provide comparable accuracy to traditional measurement boards, which are bulky and difficult to transport.
methodsWe trained 12 health workers to measure the standing height of 222 children aged 2-5 years in rural Lao People's Democratic Republic using both the ultrasound device and measurement board. The Bland-Altman method was used to depict limits of agreement and potential bias. We reported the technical error of measurement (TEM) for precision and accuracy, then assessed these results against the Standardized Monitoring and Assessment for Relief and Transition (SMART) Manual 2.0 and the WHO Multicentre Growth Reference Study (MGRS).
resultsThe average difference between the ultrasound and board measurements was 0.096 cm (95% limits-of-agreement: 0.041cm, 0.61cm) with a systematic bias of 0.1cm (95% confidence interval: 0.067cm, 0.134cm), suggesting the ultrasound measurements were slightly higher than those from the board. The ultrasound and board TEMs for precision were 0.157cm and 0.091cm respectively. The accuracy TEM was 0.205cm. All TEMs were within SMART and WHO MGRS limits.
conclusionThe ultrasound device is comparable to the measurement board among standing Lao children aged 2-5 years for precision and accuracy TEMs but showed a bias of 0.1cm. Further studies are required to assess whether calibration can minimise this bias and determine the ultrasound's accuracy on recumbent length for infants and younger children.
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.