Skip to main content
PMC home page
Archives of Disease in Childhood logoLink to Archives of Disease in Childhood
. 1999 Feb;80(2):121–124. doi: 10.1136/adc.80.2.121

Adequacy of standards for assessment of growth and nutritional status in infancy and early childhood

S A Savage 1, J Reilly 1, C Edwards 1, J Durnin 1
PMCID: PMC1717813  PMID: 10325725

Abstract

BACKGROUND—New "UK 1990" data have been proposed for assessing growth and nutritional status in infancy and childhood. These are still largely untried in clinical practice. There is also doubt about the applicability of more traditional reference data, which are still widely used, in assessing length, weight, skinfold thicknesses, and head circumference.
AIMS—To determine the suitability of new and traditional reference data for the assessment of growth and nutritional status in infancy and early childhood.
METHODS—127 infants were recruited at birth and assessed monthly to 6 months of age then at 9, 12, 18, and 24 months. Length, weight, head circumference, and triceps and subscapular skinfold thicknesses were measured. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated. Measurements were expressed as standard deviation scores relative to "revised UK 1990" data for weight, length, head circumference and BMI; relative to Tanner-Whitehouse data for skinfold thicknesses; and relative to Gairdner-Pearson standards for head circumference. Agreement at the extremes of the distribution was assessed by comparison of observed and expected frequencies above the 90th and below the 10th centile.
RESULTS—Compared with the revised UK 1990 references small differences were found for weight, length, head circumference, and BMI. Mean head circumference exceeded Gairdner-Pearson standards at all ages. Triceps and subscapular skinfold thicknesses were substantially below Tanner-Whitehouse reference data at all ages and in both sexes.
CONCLUSION—Biases in revised UK 1990 reference data are small and not clinically important. The new standards are considerably more appropriate than older reference data. Use of older reference data for head circumference and skinfold thicknesses is inappropriate.



Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (99.6 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Chinn S., Price C. E., Rona R. J. Need for new reference curves for height. Arch Dis Child. 1989 Nov;64(11):1545–1553. doi: 10.1136/adc.64.11.1545. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Cole T. J., Freeman J. V., Preece M. A. Body mass index reference curves for the UK, 1990. Arch Dis Child. 1995 Jul;73(1):25–29. doi: 10.1136/adc.73.1.25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cross J. H., Holden C., MacDonald A., Pearmain G., Stevens M. C., Booth I. W. Clinical examination compared with anthropometry in evaluating nutritional status. Arch Dis Child. 1995 Jan;72(1):60–61. doi: 10.1136/adc.72.1.60. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Doull I. J., McCaughey E. S., Bailey B. J., Betts P. R. Reliability of infant length measurement. Arch Dis Child. 1995 Jun;72(6):520–521. doi: 10.1136/adc.72.6.520. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Freeman J. V., Cole T. J., Chinn S., Jones P. R., White E. M., Preece M. A. Cross sectional stature and weight reference curves for the UK, 1990. Arch Dis Child. 1995 Jul;73(1):17–24. doi: 10.1136/adc.73.1.17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Gairdner D., Pearson J. A growth chart for premature and other infants. Arch Dis Child. 1971 Dec;46(250):783–787. doi: 10.1136/adc.46.250.783. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Paul A. A., Cole T. J., Ahmed E. A., Whitehead R. G. The need for revised standards for skinfold thickness in infancy. Arch Dis Child. 1998 Apr;78(4):354–358. doi: 10.1136/adc.78.4.354. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Preece M. A., Freeman J. V., Cole T. J. Sex differences in weight in infancy. Published centile charts for weights have been updated. BMJ. 1996 Dec 7;313(7070):1486–1486. doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7070.1486a. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Savage S. A., Reilly J. J., Edwards C. A., Durnin J. V. Weaning practice in the Glasgow Longitudinal Infant Growth Study. Arch Dis Child. 1998 Aug;79(2):153–156. doi: 10.1136/adc.79.2.153. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Tanner J. M., Whitehouse R. H. Revised standards for triceps and subscapular skinfolds in British children. Arch Dis Child. 1975 Feb;50(2):142–145. doi: 10.1136/adc.50.2.142. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Tanner J. M., Whitehouse R. H., Takaishi M. Standards from birth to maturity for height, weight, height velocity, and weight velocity: British children, 1965. I. Arch Dis Child. 1966 Oct;41(219):454–471. doi: 10.1136/adc.41.219.454. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Wright C. M., Corbett S. S., Drewett R. F. Sex differences in weight in infancy and the British 1990 national growth standards. BMJ. 1996 Aug 31;313(7056):513–514. doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7056.513. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Wright C. M., Waterston A., Aynsley-Green A. Comparison of the use of Tanner and Whitehouse, NCHS, and Cambridge standards in infancy. Arch Dis Child. 1993 Oct;69(4):420–422. doi: 10.1136/adc.69.4.420. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Archives of Disease in Childhood are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES