ArticleJPGN reports2025
Impact of anthropometric measurements variability on nutritional status classification in a pediatric quality improvement project.
Article in JPGN reports, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: Inaccurate recording of anthropometrics can compromise nutritional status assessment. Boston Children's Hospital implemented a quality improvement (QI) project which increased anthropometric measurements for hospitalized pediatric patients, and this analysis quantifies its impact on estimated measurement accuracy. Methods: From January to April 2016 (pre-QI project) and January to April 2019 (post-QI project), all inpatient encounters with age 2-18 years and at least one anthropometric measurement within 26 h of admission were included. Frequency of repeat anthropometrics within 26 h postadmission was quantified. Body mass index (BMI) Results: Among inpatient encounters in 2016 with at least one weight, repeat weights were obtained in 97.7% (724/742), declining to 83.0% (802/966) in 2019 ( Conclusions: Higher frequency of repeat BMI and lower frequency of repeat weight documentation was observed post-QI project. Repeat measurements were more likely to impact nutritional status classification with this initiative.
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.