ArticleBMJ paediatrics open2025
Accuracy and utility of newborn foot length screening tools to identify small babies by mothers in Sidama Region, Ethiopia.
Article in BMJ paediatrics open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSimple, low-cost anthropometric screening tools like foot length (FL) can be used to screen for small babies (low birth weight (LBW) or preterm) delivered at home or in facilities where functional weighing scales are unavailable. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and utility of newborn FL screening tools to help identify small babies by mothers.
methodsA mixed-method study was conducted at selected health facilities from 15 May to 6 July 2024. The consecutive sample included 396 mother-newborn dyads. Mothers screened newborns using laminated cards and plastic tools with colour codes (green/red) based on a 73 mm FL cut-off. In-depth interviews were also conducted with purposively selected participating mothers. The screening tools' diagnostic accuracy was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic curve analyses.
resultsThe mean maternal age was 26.9 years. There were 61 (15.4%) LBW and 48 (12.3%) preterm babies. Using the laminated card, mothers classified 39.4% of newborns as having a short foot, while 33.1% were classified as such using the plastic tool. The plastic tool showed LBW identification accuracy of 0.82 area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC): 0.82 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.87) compared with the laminated card AUC: 0.75 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.81). For preterm identification, both tools performed similarly (AUC: 0.73-0.74). Compared with the laminated card (81.9% sensitivity and 68.4% specificity), the plastic tool (86.9% sensitivity and 76.7% specificity) would miss fewer LBW babies and reduce unnecessary referrals. The qualitative findings also suggested that a smooth surface, footprint picture, colour codes and heel holder can increase acceptability and utilisation of the FL screening tools.
conclusionFL screening tools made from plastic or card with colour codes can be used by mothers to help identify LBW and preterm babies. Area-specific cut-off points, a smooth surface with a footprint picture and a heel holder, should be considered while designing colour-coded FL screening tools.
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.