ArticleIndian pediatrics2025
Double Burden of Malnutrition in Under-Five Children (NFHS-5 Data) Using Extended CIAF: WHO 2006 Growth Standard Versus 2019 Indian Growth References.
Article in Indian pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Trial
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
objectivesTo compare the double burden of malnutrition (DBM) in under-five children using extended composite index of anthropometric failure (eCIAF) using WHO 2006 and 2019 Indian standards.
methodsData of 2,32,920 under-five children as per National Family Health Survey-5 were eligible for inclusion. Incomplete records and extreme z-scores were excluded. eCIAF categories included: A No failure; B Wasted; C Wasted + Underweight; D Wasted + Stunted + Underweight; E Stunted + Underweight; F Stunted; G Stunted + Overweight; H Overweight; Y Underweight; Underfailure (UF): A + B + C + D + E + F + Y; Overfailure (OF): G + H.
resultsRecords of 1,96,015 under-five children were analyzed. 50.1% versus 74% children were categorized as no failure using WHO and Indian standards, respectively (P < 0.001). Prevalence of DBM, UF and OF using WHO reference was significantly higher than using Indian references [49.9% vs. 26%; 48.4% vs. 24.7%; 3.5% vs. 1.9%, respectively].
conclusionUsing Indian references prevents misclassification of DBM in under-fives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40172591What 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.