ArticleMaternal & child nutrition2024
Infant growth by INTERGROWTH-21st and Fenton Growth Charts: Predicting 1-year anthropometry in South African preterm infants.
Article in Maternal & child nutrition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fenton vs INTERGROWTH-21st charts in preterm infants < 32 weeks: impact of chart selection on growth classification.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Infant growth by INTERGROWTH-21st and Fenton Growth Charts: Predicting 1-year anthropometry in South African preterm infants.Maternal & child nutrition · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Post-natal growth influences short- and long-term preterm infant outcomes. Different growth charts, such as the Fenton Growth Chart (FGC) and INTERGROWTH-21st Preterm Post-natal Growth Standards (IG-PPGS), describe different growth curves and targets. This study compares FGC- and IG-PPGS-derived weight-for-postmenstrual age z-score (WZ) up to 50 weeks postmenstrual age (PMA50) for predicting 1-year anthropometry in 321 South African preterm infants. The change in WZ from birth to PMA50 (ΔWZ, calculated using FGC and IG-PPGS) was correlated to age-corrected 1-year anthropometric z-scores for weight-for-age (WAZ), length-for-age (LAZ), weight-for-length (WLZ) and BMI-for-age (BMIZ), and categorically compared with rates of underweight (WAZ < -2), stunting (LAZ < -2), wasting (WLZ < -2) and overweight (BMIZ > + 2). Multivariable analyses explored the effects of other early-life exposures on malnutrition risk. At PMA50, mean WZ was significantly higher on IG-PPGS (-0.56 ± 1.52) than FGC (-0.90 ± 1.52; p < 0.001), but ΔWZ was similar (IG-PPGS -0.26 ± 1.23, FGC -0.11 ± 1.14; p = 0.153). Statistically significant ΔWZ differences emerged among small-for-gestational age infants (FGC -0.38 ± 1.22 vs. IG-PPGS -0.01 ± 1.30; p < 0.001) and appropriate-for-gestational age infants (FGC + 0.02 ± 1.08, IG-PPGS -0.39 ± 1.18; p < 0.001). Correlation coefficients of ΔWZ with WAZ, LAZ, WLZ and BMIZ were low (r < 0.45), though higher for FGC than IG-PPGS. Compared with IG-PPGS, ΔWZ < -1 on FGC predicted larger percentages of underweight (42% vs. 36%) and wasting (43% vs. 39%) and equal percentages of stunting (33%), while ΔWZ > + 1 predicted larger percentages overweight (57% vs. 38%). Both charts performed similarly in multivariable analysis. Differences between FGC and IG-PPGS are less apparent when considering ΔWZ, highlighting the importance of assessing growth as change over time, irrespective of growth chart.
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.