ArticlePediatrics2025
Remote Assessment of Pediatric Anthropometrics.
Article in Pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Accuracy of parent- and self-reported height and weight data in children: a systematic review.European journal of public health · 2026Pooled it
- A pilot study of remote cognitive assessment in children using the NIH toolbox participant/examiner app.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Reliability of remote at-home oscillometric blood pressure monitoring in community-dwelling children aged 3-17.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- Extending the Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) Cohort through 2030: Rationale and study protocol.PloS one · 2024Observational
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
objectiveTo assess the reliability and fidelity of caregiver- and examiner-administered anthropometric measurements in English- and Spanish-speaking children aged 0-17 years.
methodsParticipants (N = 199; median age, 4.69 years; interquartile range, 1.58-10.37; 46.7% male) were recruited in 6 sites across the United States in May-August 2023. Examiners were trained by a pediatric nurse; caregivers received well-developed administration materials. The key anthropometric outcomes assessed were infant length/child height, weight, percent body fat (PBF), head size, and waist circumference. Concordance between caregiver/examiner measurements was assessed using interrater reliability estimates, technical error of measurement (TEM), and mean absolute difference (MAD). Secondary outcomes included reported ease of use and language used.
resultsHigh concordance was observed between caregivers and examiners, with reliability coefficients ranging from 0.91 to >0.99 and intraclass correlation coefficient values from 0.92 to >0.99 across all assessments and age groups. The TEM was low (height = 2.10 cm, weight = 0.39 kg, PBF = 2.33%; head circumference = 0.73 cm, waist circumference = 3.65 cm) as were MAD estimates (height = 2.12 cm, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.82-2.42; weight = 0.35 kg, 95% CI, 0.29-0.41; PBF = 2.39%, 95% CI, 1.89-2.88; head size = 0.71 cm, 95% CI, 0.54-0.89; waist circumference = 3.15 cm, 95% CI, 2.41-3.88).
conclusionsAcross multiple metrics, there was high concordance between caregiver- and examiner-administered measurements, providing evidence of interchangeability between remote and in-person assessments of anthropometric outcomes. Remote anthropometric assessment appears feasible and low burden and has comparably high validity and reliability to in-person methods.
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.