ArticleMaternal & child nutrition2024
Reliability of anthropometric measurements of a digi-board in comparison to an analog height board in Namibian children under 5 years.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Effectiveness of a school-based intervention using alternative sports to improve physical and motor skills in elementary school students (RENUÉVATE Project): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Exploring practical issues in children's anthropometric measurements: A qualitative descriptive study involving Indonesian health professionals and community health workers.Belitung nursing journal · 2025Article
- Reliability of anthropometric measurements of a digi-board in comparison to an analog height board in Namibian children under 5 years.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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Poor measurement quality has set back the utility of anthropometry in defining childhood malnutrition, prompting calls for alternative measurement techniques. This study aimed to assess the reliability of anthropometric measurements using a digital height board in comparison to an analog height board in Namibian children under 5 years of age. A cross-sectional, descriptive study was conducted (n = 425) between the age of 6 and 59 months, using anthropometric measurements of weight, height and mid-upper arm circumference. Two trained enumerators each collected four height measurements of each child: two using an analog height board and two using a digi-board. The repeated height measurements between and within the enumerators were used to determine intra- and interobserver reliability. Reliability of the digi-board was assessed using the technical error of measurement (TEM), relative TEM (%TEM), intraclass correlation and a Bland-Altman analysis to assess the agreement between the two methods. In all these assessments, the analog height board was considered as the gold standard and used for comparison. The digi-board showed superiority to the analog height board in terms of reliability (analog TEM = 0.22, digi-board TEM = 0.16). Although the digi-board has potential to improve child anthropometry, further clinical and large survey studies are needed to validate the used of this tool in routine population-based surveys.
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.