Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38490693›Full record

ReviewBMJ paediatrics open2024

Global relevance of MGRS growth standards: the case of India.

Vandana Prasad, Dipa Sinha, Rohit James Joseph

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ paediatrics open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Vandana PrasadPublic Health Resource Society, New Delhi, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0640-4965
Dipa SinhaDr BR Ambedkar University Delhi, New Delhi, India dipasinha@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0306-219X
Rohit James JosephAshoka University, Sonepat, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2146-3835

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The most common measures of childhood undernutrition are based on anthropometric measures such as height-for-age (stunting/chronic undernutrition) and weight-for-height (wasting/acute undernutrition). It is well recognised that the determinants of undernutrition are multiple, including food intake, dietary diversity, health, sanitation and women's status. Currently, most countries across the world including India use the globally accepted WHO-Multicentre Growth Reference Study (MGRS) growth standards (2006) for the purposes of measurement as well as for evaluating progress on these metrics. However, there is some discussion on the universal relevance of these standards, and in the Indian context, whether these standards overestimate the prevalence of stunting, considering differences in genetic potential for growth. This is especially relevant in the context of increasing burden of obesity and non-communicable diseases in India. Based on a detailed review of literature, policy documents and expert inputs, this review paper discusses the relevance of the WHO growth standards for height/stunting, in the context of India. Issues discussed related to the MGRS methodology include pooling of data and intersite and intrasite variability, opting for standards as opposed to references, and external validity. Other issues related to plasticity of stunting and the influence of maternal heights are also discussed, in the context of analysing the appropriateness of using universal growth standards. Based on the review, it is recommended that the current standards may continue to be used until a newer global standard is established through a similar study.

Indexed as

MalnutritionCachexiaDietFemaleGrowth DisordersHumansIndiaGeneticsGrowthInfantObesityStatistics

Identifiers

PMID38490693
PMCPMC10946363

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.