ArticleCurrent developments in nutrition2026
Comparison of WHO and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Growth References for Classifying Height and Weight Status in Young Children in the United States-Affiliated Pacific.
Article in Current developments in nutrition, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Multiple international growth reference systems exist for classifying child undernutrition and excess weight, yet different references yield systematically different prevalence estimates. This has important implications for surveillance in Pacific Islander populations, where both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and WHO references are used across jurisdictions. Objectives: This study aimed to quantify classification discrepancies between WHO Growth Standards (ages 2-5 y), WHO Growth Reference (ages 6-8 y), and CDC Growth Charts (ages 2-8 y) in Pacific Islander children, and to assess implications for population health surveillance. Methods: This secondary cross-sectional analysis used 2014 data from the Children's Healthy Living Program ( Results: Height-for-age agreement was high across both age groups (≥98.3%). BMI-for-age agreement differed substantially by age: poor for ages 2 to 5 y (kappa = 0.26; 85.5% agreement) and high for ages 6 to 8 y (kappa = 0.86; 97.9% agreement). For ages 2 to 5 y, the WHO classified 11 percentage points more children as overweight than the CDC. When identical percentile cutoffs were applied across reference datasets, prevalence differences narrowed substantially, indicating that most discrepancies result from differing classification criteria rather than reference population differences. Conclusions: Growth reference selection introduces systematic measurement bias into Pacific Islander child health surveillance. Surveillance systems should maintain reference consistency over time, explicitly report reference criteria, and consider dual reporting to enable valid temporal and geographic comparisons. Future research should evaluate which reference better predicts health outcomes in this population.
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.