ArticleBMC pediatrics2025
Anthropometric measurements as surrogate for identifying low birth weight: comparison with gold standard of measuring weight among neonates at a tertiary hospital in Tanzania.
Article in BMC pediatrics, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReducing neonatal mortality is crucial for achieving Sustainable Development Goal 3.2. In Tanzania and other low- and middle-income countries, many babies are born at home or in primary health care settings without access to weighing scales. Other anthropometric measurements apart from weight may serve as effective surrogates for identifying low birth weight (LBW) infants and prioritizing them for care.
objectivesThis study aimed to assess the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of four anthropometric measurements chest circumference (CHC), occipitofrontal circumference (OFC), foot length (FL), and mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) and determine the optimal cut-off values for detecting LBW infants.
methodsA hospital-based cross-sectional study was conducted in the neonatal unit at Muhimbili National Hospital (MNH). Newborns admitted within 24 h of birth were enrolled. A total of 471 newborns had CHC, OFC, FL, MUAC, and birth weight (BW) measured. Pearson’s correlation coefficient assessed the relationship between these measurements and birth weight. Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) analysis was used to determine optimal cut-off points.
resultsOf 471 newborns, 52.2% were female. The mean birth weight was 2639 g (SD = 851), with 43.1% (203) classified as LBW. A strong positive correlation of 0.90 was found between CHC and BW (p < 0.01), followed by OFC (0.82, p < 0.01). ROC analysis showed CHC (AUC = 0.97, 95% CI 0.97–0.98) and OFC (AUC = 0.94, 95% CI 0.92–0.96) as the most reliable indicators for detecting LBW. The optimal cut-off values were ≤ 29.45 cm for CHC and ≤ 32.9 cm for OFC.
conclusionOur study demonstrated that CHC with a cutoff ≤29.45 cm and OFC with a cutoff ≤ 32.9 cm has higher sensitivity and specificity for predicting low birth weight among neonates compared to FL or MUAC, indicating greater accuracy in detecting LBW in Tanzania. Our findings apply specifically to LBW newborns; we did not classify IUGR or SGA separately, and further studies are required to validate these cut-offs in those populations.
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.