ArticlePloS one2026
Methodological quality and reporting characteristics of anthropometric measurements in studies assessing the nutritional status of children in Ethiopia: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate anthropometric data is essential for assessing nutritional status. To ensure data quality, careful planning of instruments, training and supervision of enumerators are mandatory. In Ethiopia, where malnutrition rates are high, investigating the methodological quality of anthropometric measurements in primary studies is crucial for ensuring the credibility of reports. Therefore, this review assesses the reporting characteristics and methodological quality of anthropometric measurements in primary studies conducted in Ethiopia, focusing on the nutritional status of school children.
methodsA comprehensive systematic search was conducted to include primary studies that reported on children's growth from Medline, AJOL, Embase, and CINAHL. Additional sources, such as Google Scholar, ProQuest, Addis Ababa, and Jimma University's repositories were also accessed. Studies whose primary objective was to evaluate the nutritional status of children using anthropometric measurements were included in the review. The results were organized in EndNote, screened in Covidence, extracted in Excel and analyzed in Stata.
resultsOf the 678 retrieved records, 30 (n = 18,059) studies were included in the review. The studies used different exclusion criteria: 14 (46.7%) excluded children with physical deformities, seven (23.3%) excluded children who received anti-parasitic treatment within a specified time and four (13.3%) excluded children who were taking nutritional supplements. About 22 (73.3%) studies did not mention standardization, while 17 (56.7%) did not mention the calibration of instruments. Furthermore, about 12 (40%) studies did not report the setting where the measurements were obtained.
conclusionInconsistencies in reporting key methodological details of anthropometric measurements were identified, highlighting a potential gap or loose interpretations of the STROBE-nut reporting checklist for studies that measure anthropometry to assess the nutritional status of children. Therefore, we recommend strengthening the STROBE-nut by giving emphasis to the quality assurance aspect of anthropometric measurements including standardization, calibration, material, setting, number of measurements taken and measurer qualifications.
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.