Should a single growth standard be used to judge the nutritional status of children under age 5 years globally? No.

Universal growth standards for under-five children, given the worldwide variation in healthy growth and several determinants of anthropometry, are imprecise measures of nutritional status, particularly when used cross-sectionally. In constructing the global-use WHO growth standard, linear growth differences between contributing sites and pooled mean were >0.2 SD in 37% of observations. Systematic reviews confirm even greater variability, notably amplified for weight-for-age and head-circumference-for-age metrics. Unsurprisingly, developed nations had higher, and LMICs lower, growth dimensions. Contextual growth references predict neonatal morbidities, pathological short stature, macrocephaly, cardiometabolic risk factors, and adult noncommunicable diseases better than the WHO standards. Child body composition also varies contextually, with greater adiposity despite comparable weights in South Asian populations. Thus, contextual references, though not the perfect solution, are better suited for everyday practice and nutrition policy. Growth standards should only be used as a screening for clinical judgments aided by precise biomarkers.