Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38576647›Full record

ReviewCureus2024

A Comparative Study of National Family Health Survey-4 and National Family Health Survey-5 of Nutritional Indicators in Chhattisgarh.

Anupriya Jha, Aditi Chandrakar

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 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
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 37% 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, 2 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anupriya JhaCommunity and Family Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Raipur, IND.
Aditi ChandrakarCommunity and Family Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Raipur, IND.
All India Institute of Medical Sciences Raipur · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Globally, public health issues related to malnutrition exist. One of the countries grappling with challenges in combating anemia and malnutrition is India, including the state of Chhattisgarh. The National Family Health Survey-5 (NFHS-5) data show that the advancements made in the National Family Health Survey-4 (NFHS-4) were reversed in NFHS-5. Despite having several programs and policies in place, Chhattisgarh has not yet utilized all of its potential to demonstrate exponential reductions in anemia and malnutrition. This study highlights probable factors and inter-district variations to provide an overview of the nutritional condition of districts in Chhattisgarh compared to NFHS-4. Children under five who are severely wasted, stunted, or experiencing both conditions exhibit a lower prevalence. An immediate warning indication was the rise in anemia prevalence across all age categories. In Chhattisgarh, when comparing NFHS-5 to NFHS-4, the study identified a reduced frequency of direct determinants and an increased coverage of nutrition-specific treatments. The state of Chhattisgarh has seen a significant improvement in underlying factors, including the number of homes with power and drinking water quality. It also describes the shortcomings and advancements in the inter-district variations among the coverage factors. Instead of focusing on raising the nutritional indicators for Chhattisgarh, this study also includes initiatives made by states that have fared better in terms of those metrics.

Indexed as

chhattisgarhnfhsnutritional indicatorsoverweightstuntingunderweightwasting

Identifiers

PMID38576647
PMCPMC10991083
OpenAlexW4392467035

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.