Dataset Information

World Health Organization growth standards: How do Canadian children measure up?

ABSTRACT:

Background

World Health Organization (WHO) growth standards for children aged 0 to 5 years describe growth under optimal conditions and were adopted for use in Canada in 2012. We are seeking to validate these charts in a well-characterized, longitudinal cohort of healthy, Canadian youngsters, assess tracking over time, and evaluate the prognostic implications of early growth.

Methods

Data from 2,795 mother-infant dyads from the CHILD birth cohort were classified by feeding modality at 6 months as exclusively breastfed, partially breastfed, or formula-fed. WHO z-scores (z) were calculated at birth, 3 months, 1 year, and 3 years. Receiver operator characteristics (ROC) assessed the predictive performance of early weight (WT), weight-for-length (WfL), or body mass index (BMI) z-scores for overweight/obesity at 3 years.

Results

Compared to WHO standards, Canadian children at birth had lower median WfLz (-0.73) and BMIz (-0.29), with more positive scores by 3 years (WfLz=BMIz=0.58). At both 1 and 3 years, formula feeding was associated with higher scores than breastfeeding, even after regression adjustment for covariates. Head circumference z-score was typically positive at all times and regardless of feeding modality. At 1 year, ROC area under the curve was 0.79 for WTz, WfLz, and BMIz, and BMIz>0.88 identified children with increased risk of overweight/obesity (BMIz >2) at age 3 years (20.3% versus 3.0%, P<0.001).

Conclusions

Compared to WHO growth charts, Canadian children at 3 years show an upward shift in BMIz and WfLz, particularly when formula-fed. Infant growth parameters may identify infants with increased risk of overweight/obesity at age 3 years; early recognition may allow targeting infants at higher risk.

SUBMITTER: Rodd C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8318530 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

World Health Organization growth standards: How do Canadian children measure up?

Rodd Celia C Feely Allison A Becker Allan B AB Moraes Theo J TJ Subbarao Padmaja P Mandhane Piushkumar J PJ Turvey Stuart E SE Lefebvre Diana L DL Sears Malcolm R MR Azad Meghan B MB Sharma Atul A

Paediatrics & child health 20200718 5

<h4>Background</h4>World Health Organization (WHO) growth standards for children aged 0 to 5 years describe growth under optimal conditions and were adopted for use in Canada in 2012. We are seeking to validate these charts in a well-characterized, longitudinal cohort of healthy, Canadian youngsters, assess tracking over time, and evaluate the prognostic implications of early growth.<h4>Methods</h4>Data from 2,795 mother-infant dyads from the CHILD birth cohort were classified by feeding modalit ...[more]

PMID: 34336064

Similar Datasets

Project description:Three recently completed longitudinal cohort studies have developed intrauterine fetal growth charts, one in the United States and two international. This expert review compares and contrasts the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Fetal Growth Studies, INTERGROWTH-21st and World Health Organization Multicentre Growth Reference Study conclusions in light of differences in aims, sampling frames, and analytical approaches. An area of controversy is whether a single growth reference is representative of growth, regardless of ethnic or country origin. The INTERGROWTH and World Health Organization Fetal studies used a similar approach as the World Health Organization Multicentre Growth Reference Study for infants and children, the aim of which was to create a single international reference for the best physiological growth for children aged 0-5 years. INTERGROWTH made the same assumption (ie, that there would be no differences internationally among countries or racial/ethnic groups in fetal growth when conditions were optimal). INTERGROWTH found differences in crown-rump length and head circumference among countries but interpreted the differences as not meaningful and presented a pooled standard. The World Health Organization Multicentre Growth Reference Study was designed to create a pooled reference, although they evaluated for and presented country differences, along with discussion of the implications. The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study was designed to assess whether racial/ethnic-specific fetal growth standards were needed, in recognition of the fact that fetal size is commonly estimated from dimensions (head circumference, abdominal circumference, and femur length) in which there are known differences in children and adults of differing racial/ethnic groups. A pooled standard would be derived if no racial/ethnic differences were found. Highly statistically significant racial/ethnic differences in fetal growth were found resulting in the publication of racial/ethnic-specific derived standards. Despite all 3 studies including low-risk status women, the percentiles for fetal dimensions and estimated fetal weight varied among the studies. Specifically, at 39 weeks, the 50th percentile for estimated fetal weight was 3502 g for whites, 3330 g for Hispanics, 3263 g for Asians, and 3256 for blacks in the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study, compared with 3186 g for INTERGROWTH and 3403 g for World Health Organization Multicentre Growth Reference Study. When applying these standards to a clinical population, it is important to be aware that different percentages of small- and large-for-gestational-age fetuses will be identified. Also, it may be necessary to use more restrictive cut points, such as the 2.5th or 97.5th, for small-for-gestational-age or large-for-gestational-age fetuses, respectively. Ideally, a comparison of diagnostic accuracy, or misclassification rates, of small-for-gestational-age and large-for-gestational-age fetuses in relation to morbidity and mortality using different criteria is necessary to make recommendations and remains an important data gap. Identification of the appropriate percentile cutoffs in relation to neonatal morbidity and mortality is needed in local populations, depending on which fetal growth chart is used. On a final point, assessment of fetal growth with a one-time measurement remains standard clinical practice, despite recognition that a single measurement can indicate only size. Ultimately, it is knowledge about fetal growth in addition to other factors and clinical judgment that should trigger intervention.

Project description:BackgroundThe INTERGROWTH-21st sex and gestational age (GA) specific newborn size standards (IG-NS) are intended to complement the World Health Organization Child Growth Standards (WHO-GS), which are not GA-specific. We examined the implications of using IG-NS at birth and WHO-GS at postnatal ages in longitudinal epidemiologic studies.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to quantify the extent to which standardised measures of newborn size and growth are affected when using WHO-GS versus IG-NS at birth among term-born infants.MethodsData from two prenatal trials in Bangladesh (n = 755) and The Gambia (n = 522) were used to estimate and compare size at birth and growth from birth to 3 months when using WHO-GS only ('WHO-GS') versus IG-NS at birth and WHO-GS postnatally ('IG-NS'). Mean length-for-age (LAZ), weight-for-age (WAZ) and head circumference-for-age (HCAZ), and the prevalence of undernutrition (stunting: LAZ < -2SD; underweight: WAZ < -2SD; and microcephaly: HCAZ < -2SD) were estimated overall and by GA strata [early-term (370/7 -386/7 ), full-term (390/7 -406/7 ) and late-term (410/7 -430/7 )]. We used Bland-Altman plots to compare continuous indices and Kappa statistic to compare categorical indicators.ResultsAt birth, mean LAZ, WAZ and HCAZ, and the prevalence of undernutrition were most similar among newborns between 39 and 40 weeks of GA when using WHO-GS versus IG-NS. However, anthropometric indices were systematically lower among early-term infants and higher among late-term infants when using WHO-GS versus IG-NS. Early-term and late-term infants demonstrated relatively faster and slower growth, respectively, when using WHO-GS versus IG-NS, with the direction and magnitude of differences varying between anthropometric indices. Individual-level differences in attained size and growth, when using WHO-GS versus IG-NS, were greater than 0.2 SD in magnitude for >60% of infants across all anthropometric indices.ConclusionsUsing IG-NS at birth with WHO-GS postnatally is acceptable for full-term infants but may give a misleading interpretation of growth trajectories among early- and late-term infants.

Project description:BackgroundFor ages 5-19 years, the World Health Organization (WHO) publishes reference charts based on 'core data' from the US National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), collected from 1963-75 on 22,917 US children. To promote the use of body mass index in older children, weight-for-age was omitted after age 10. Health providers have subsequently expressed concerns about this omission and the selection of centiles. We therefore sought to extend weight-for-age reference curves from 10 to 19 years by applying WHO exclusion criteria and curve fitting methods to the core NCHS data and to revise the choice of displayed centiles.MethodsWHO analysts first excluded ~ 3% of their reference population in order to achieve a "non-obese sample with equal height". Based on these exclusion criteria, 314 girls and 304 boys were first omitted for 'unhealthy' weights-for-height. By applying WHO global deviance and information criteria, optimal Box-Cox power exponential models were used to fit smoothed weight-for-age centiles. Bootstrap resampling was used to assess the precision of centile estimates. For all charts, additional centiles were included in the healthy range (3 to 97%), and the more extreme WHO centiles 0.1 and 99.9% were dropped.ResultsIn addition to weight-for-age beyond 10 years, our charts provide more granularity in the centiles in the healthy range -2 to +2 SD (3-97%). For both weight and BMI, the bootstrap confidence intervals for the 99.9th centile were at least an order of magnitude wider than the corresponding 50th centile values.ConclusionsThese charts complement existing WHO charts by allowing weight-for-age to be plotted concurrently with height in older children. All modifications followed strict WHO methodology and utilized the same core data from the US NCHS. The additional centiles permit a more precise assessment of normal growth and earlier detection of aberrant growth as it crosses centiles. Elimination of extreme centiles reduces the risk of misclassification. A complete set of charts is available at the CPEG web site (http://cpeg-gcep.net).

Dataset Information

World Health Organization growth standards: How do Canadian children measure up?

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

World Health Organization growth standards: How do Canadian children measure up?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets