Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38354022›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2024

Measurement of Head Circumference Using a Smartphone: Feasibility Cohort Study.

Stefan Yordanov, Kalsoom Akhter, Jye Quan Teh, Jawad Naushahi, Ibrahim Jalloh

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stefan Yordanov *Academic Division of Neurosurgery, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7008-6012
Kalsoom AkhterAcademic Division of Neurosurgery, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0628-5951
Jye Quan Teh *Academic Division of Neurosurgery, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0286-2953
Jawad NaushahiAcademic Division of Neurosurgery, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8959-1035
Ibrahim Jalloh *Academic Division of Neurosurgery, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5345-5928
Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurate head circumference (HC) measurement is essential when assessing neonates and infants. Tape measure HC measurements are prone to errors, particularly when performed by parents/guardians, due to individual differences in head shape, hair style and texture, subject cooperation, and examiner techniques, including tape measure placement and tautness. There is, therefore, the need for a more reliable method.

objectiveThe primary objective of this study was to evaluate the validity, reliability, and consistency of HC app measurement compared to the current standard of practice, serving as a proof-of-concept for use by health care professionals.

methodsWe recruited infants attending the neurosurgery clinic, and parents/guardians were approached and consented to participate in the study. Along with the standard head circumference measurement, measurements were taken with the head circumference app (HC app) developed in-house, and we also collected baseline medical history and characteristics. For the statistical analysis, we used RStudio (version 4.1.1). In summary, we analyzed covariance and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) to compare the measurement's within-rater and interrater reliability. The F test was used to analyze the variance between measurements and the Bland-Altman agreement, t test, and correlation coefficients were used to compare the tape measurement to the measures taken by the HC app. We also used nonvalidated questionnaires to explore parental or guardians' experiences, assess their views on app utility, and collect feedback.

resultsThe total number of recruited patients was 37. Comparison between the app measurements and the measurements with a tape measure showed poor reliability (ICC=0.177) and wide within-app variations (ICC=0.341). The agreement between the measurements done by parents/guardians and the tape measurements done by the researcher was good (ICC=0.901). Parental/guardian feedback was overall very positive, with most of the parents/guardians reporting that the app was easy to use (n=31, 84%) and that they are happy to use the app in an unsupervised setting, provided that they are assured of the measurement quality.

conclusionsWe developed this project as a proof-of-concept study, and as such, the app has shown great potential to be used both in a clinical setting and by parents/guardians in their own homes.

Indexed as

appapplicationapplicationsappsbabiesbabychildchildrendigital healthHChead circumferencehydrocephalusinfancyinfantinfantsmHealthmobile healthneonatalneonateneonatesneuroneurologistneurologyneurosurgeonneurosurgerypaediatricpaediatric neurosurgerypaediatricspediatricpediatric neurosurgerypediatricssmartphonesmartphonestoddlertoddlers

Identifiers

PMID38354022
PMCPMC10902771
OpenAlexW4390860490

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.