Are the Growth Standards of the World Health Organization Valid for Spanish Children? The SONEV Study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Perez-Bermejo M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8418137 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundWorld 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.MethodsData 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.ResultsCompared 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).ConclusionsCompared 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.
| S-EPMC8318530 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe ability of the World Health Organization (WHO) growth standards to represent the growth of South East Asian infants has been questioned. The aim of this study was to provide contemporary data on the growth of Indonesian breast-fed and formula-fed infants, compared with the WHO growth standards.MethodsA prospective cohort study of 160 normal healthy infants was undertaken in a suburban area of South Jakarta, Indonesia. Infants from 2 to 6 weeks of age were recruited, and they consumed exclusively either breast milk or infant formula for at least 6 months, with follow-up until 12 months of age.ResultsOverall, the infants in the present study were lighter (weight-for-age), were shorter (length-for-age), and had smaller head circumferences (head circumference-for-age) than the average WHO Growth Reference Study population but were of similar proportion (weight-for-length). Compared with the WHO Growth Reference Study, the z scores for weight-for-age, length-for-age, and head circumference-for-age in the Indonesian children fell from birth to 6 weeks of age and then increased until 3 months of age in both the breast-fed and the formula-fed infants. At 6 weeks of age, the weight-for-age z scores fell below -2 standard deviations for 16 (20.5%) breast-fed and 40 (51.3%) formula-fed infants, and the length-for-age z scores fell below -2 standard deviations for 31 (39.7%) breast-fed and 41 (52.6%) formula-fed infants.ConclusionThe WHO growth standards do not reflect the growth of the present cohort of Indonesian infants and may overestimate the levels of underweight and stunted children.
| S-EPMC4523192 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe World Health Organization (WHO) has established a set of growth curves for use as international standards in children up to age 5. The WHO's position is that all economically advantaged children who were breastfed as infants grow similarly. As a result, a single set of growth charts can be used to judge growth in any child, regardless of race or ethnicity. The goal of this study was to compare mean heights, weights and head circumferences from a variety of studies with the WHO's data.DesignWe compared data from the WHO's Multicentre Growth Reference Study (MGRS) with data from studies performed in 55 countries or ethnic groups.Data sourcesPubMed, WHO Global Database on Child Growth and Malnutrition, SciELO, Google Scholar, Textbooks and Ministries of Statistics and Public Health.Eligibility criteriaLarge recent studies (1988-2013) of economically advantaged groups, including comparisons with cohorts of breastfed children wherever possible.ResultsHeight varied somewhat among different national and ethnic groups. Means were generally within 0.5 of an SD of the MGRS means. Weight varied more than height, but the low MGRS means were seen as endorsing slenderness in the midst of an obesity epidemic. The mean head circumference varied widely. In many groups, means were consistently 0.5-1 SD above the MGRS mean. Head size in breastfed children at any age examined was far closer to local norms than to the MGRS means.ConclusionsHeight and weight curves may not be optimal fits in all cases. The differences between national or ethnic group head circumference means were large enough that using the WHO charts would put many children at risk for misdiagnosis of macrocephaly or microcephaly. Our findings indicate that the use of a single international standard for head circumference is not justified.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO (# CRD42013003675).
| S-EPMC3902406 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis study focused on comparing the applicability and efficacy of the World Health Organization (WHO) growth standards and the China growth charts in diagnosing malnutrition and indicating nutritional interventions in preterm infants.MethodsSix hundred and eighty-three preterm infants were involved and their anthropometric data were collected. The proportion of weight and head circumference less than the 10th percentile (P10 ), weight less than the 25th percentile (P25 ), and weight for length greater than the 90th percentile (P90 ) identified by the WHO growth standards and the China growth charts were compared.ResultsAt corrected age (CA) 1 ~< 2 months (m), the proportion of head circumference <P10 assessed by the WHO growth standards was higher than that assessed by the China growth charts by approximately 4.4% in boys and 6.6% in girls. During infancy, both boys and girls had lower proportions of weight <P10 and weight <P25 with the WHO growth standards than with the China growth charts: 5.1% and 5.6%, respectively, for weight <P10 and 7.0% and 8.8%, respectively, for weight <P25 . For boys older than CA 1 m and for girls older than CA 3 m, the proportion of weight-for-length >P90 assessed by the WHO growth standards was greater than that assessed by the China growth charts.ConclusionsCompared with the China growth charts, the WHO growth standards can further reduce the number of diagnoses of abnormal physical growth, are more helpful in avoiding overnutrition interventions, and are more sensitive in the early detection of delayed head circumference growth.
| S-EPMC8456864 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5807181 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AIM:Previous studies have found high rates of stunted linear growth in Greenlandic children. We measured growth patterns in Greenland and compared them with international growth charts. METHODS:The study cohort comprised 279 healthy children aged 6-10 years in 2012. They participated in two pregnancy and birth cohorts in Greenland and longitudinal growth data as birth was extracted from their medical records. Growth reference ranges were estimated with the lambda-mu-sigma (LMS) method and compared with growth charts from Denmark and the World Health Organization (WHO). RESULTS:The children's mean length, weight and head circumference were significantly larger than the WHO growth charts (p < 0.001). We found that 21-28% of the children aged zero to one years exceeded the WHO growth chart for length by more than two standard deviations. For weight and head circumference, 9-16% of the children aged 0-10 years and 9-11% of the children from zero to two years exceeded the WHO charts by more than two standard deviations. The Danish references were exceeded to a lesser degree. CONCLUSION:This study showed that the growth of Greenlandic children up to 10 years was no longer stunted. Major determining factors suggested are genetic admixture, maternal overweight, changes in nutrition and improved health.
| S-EPMC6221127 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundJapanese encephalitis (JE) is the most important form of viral encephalitis in Asia. Surveillance for the disease in many countries has been limited. To improve collection of accurate surveillance data in order to increase understanding of the full impact of JE and monitor control programs, World Health Organization (WHO) Recommended Standards for JE Surveillance have been developed. To aid acceptance of the Standards, we describe the process of development, provide the supporting evidence, and explain the rationale for the recommendations made in the document.MethodsA JE Core Working Group was formed in 2002 and worked on development of JE surveillance standards. A series of questions on specific topics was initially developed. A literature review was undertaken and the findings were discussed and documented. The group then prepared a draft document, with emphasis placed on the feasibility of implementation in Asian countries. A field test version of the Standards was published by WHO in January 2006. Feedback was then sought from countries that piloted the Standards and from public health professionals in forums and individual meetings to modify the Standards accordingly.ResultsAfter revisions, a final version of the JE surveillance standards was published in August 2008. The supporting information is presented here together with explanations of the rationale and levels of evidence for specific recommendations.ConclusionProvision of the supporting evidence and rationale should help to facilitate successful implementation of the JE surveillance standards in JE-endemic countries which will in turn enable better understanding of disease burden and the impact of control programs.
| S-EPMC2809064 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There remains controversy regarding whether the growth charts constructed from data of term infants, such as those produced by the World Health Organization (WHO) standards, can appropriately evaluate the postnatal growth of preterm infants. This retrospective cohort study, conducted in the First Affiliated Hospital of Shandong First Medical University in Jinan China, aimed to compare the postnatal growth charts of singleton preterm and term infants using WHO standards at 40-160 weeks postmenstrual age (PMA). A total of 5,459 and 15,185 sets of longitudinal measurements [length/height, weight, head circumference (HC), and body mass index (BMI)] from birth to 160 weeks PMA were used to construct growth charts for 559 singleton preterm (mean PMA at birth, 33.84 weeks) and 1,596 singleton term infants (born at 40 weeks PMA), respectively, using the Generalized Additive Models for Location, Scale, and Shape (GAMLSS) method. Z-scores (prematurity corrected) were calculated using WHO Anthro software. Compared to WHO standards, all parameters of preterm infants were increased, especially in terms of length/height and weight; the gap between the two almost spanned two adjacent centile curves. Compared to term controls, the length/height, weight, and BMI of preterm infants were higher at 40 weeks PMA, surpassed by term infants at 52-64 weeks PMA, and quite consistent thereafter. The HC of preterm infants at 40-160 weeks PMA was quite consistent with both term controls and the WHO standards. The Z-scores for length/height, weight, and BMI of preterm infants relative to the WHO standards gradually decreased from 1.20, 1.13, and 0.74 at 40-44 weeks PMA to 0.67, 0.42, and 0.03 at 132-160 weeks PMA, respectively; Z-scores for HC of preterm infants rapidly decreased from 0.73 to 0.29 at 40-50 weeks PMA, and then fluctuated in the range of 0.08-0.23 at 50-160 weeks PMA. Preterm infants had higher growth trajectories than the WHO standards and similar but not identical trajectories to term infants during the first 2 years of life. These findings reemphasize the necessity of constructing local growth charts for Chinese singleton preterm infants.
| S-EPMC8005644 | biostudies-literature
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).
| S-EPMC3922078 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs) are a complex family of tumors of widely variable clinical behavior. The World Health Organization (WHO) 2010 classification provided a valuable tool to stratify neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) in three prognostic subgroups based on the proliferation index. However, substantial heterogeneity remains within these subgroups, and simplicity sometimes entails an ambiguous and imprecise prognostic stratification. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the prognostic impact of histological differentiation within the WHO 2010 grade (G) 1/G2/G3 categories, and explore additional Ki-67 cutoff values in GEP-NENs. SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS:A total of 2,813 patients from the Spanish National Tumor Registry (RGETNE) were analyzed. Cases were classified by histological differentiation as NETs (neuroendocrine tumors [well differentiated]) or NECs (neuroendocrine carcinomas [poorly differentiated]), and by Ki-67 index as G1 (Ki-67 <2%), G2 (Ki-67 3%-20%), or G3 (Ki-67 >20%). Patients were stratified into five cohorts: NET-G1, NET-G2, NET-G3, NEC-G2, and NEC-G3. RESULTS:Five-year survival was 72%. Age, gender, tumor site, grade, differentiation, and stage were all independent prognostic factors for survival. Further subdivision of the WHO 2010 grading improved prognostic stratification, both within G2 (5-year survival: 81% [Ki-67 3%-5%], 72% [Ki-67 6%-10%], 52% [Ki-67 11%-20%]) and G3 NENs (5-year survival: 35% [Ki-67 21%-50%], 22% [Ki-67 51%-100%]). Five-year survival was significantly greater for NET-G2 versus NEC-G2 (75.5% vs. 58.2%) and NET-G3 versus NEC-G3 (43.7% vs. 25.4%). CONCLUSION:Substantial clinical heterogeneity is observed within G2 and G3 GEP-NENs. The WHO 2010 classification can be improved by including the additive effect of histological differentiation and the proliferation index. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms are tumors of widely variable clinical behavior, roughly stratified by the World Health Organization (WHO) 2010 classification into three subgroups based on proliferation index. Real-world data from 2,813 patients of the Spanish Registry RGETNE demonstrated substantial clinical heterogeneity within grade (G) 2 and G3 neuroendocrine neoplasms. Tumor morphology and further subdivision of grading substantially improves prognostic stratification of these patients and may help individualize therapy. This combined, additive effect shall be considered in future classifications of neuroendocrine tumors and incorporated for stratification purposes in clinical trials.
| S-EPMC5896708 | biostudies-literature