RESUMO
Introduction: A good screening tool, such as a growth chart, should distinguish between children with normal growth and those with perturbed growth. Suitability of synthetic Indian growth references for diagnosing growth-related disorders for under-five children has not been evaluated. To assess the validity of World Health Organization (WHO) 2006 standards vs synthetic Indian references (2019) (by comparing weight, height, body mass index (BMI), standard deviation scores (SDS) and the composite index of anthropometric failure (CIAF)) in differentiating normal children and children with growth-related disorders. Methods: Records of 2188 children (0-60 months) attending a tertiary centre paediatric outpatient department (OPD) were retrospectively studied; 1854 children were healthy and 334 were diagnosed with growth-related disorders as per the European Society for Paediatric Endocrinology (ESPE) classification. The anthropometric parameters converted to Z-scores for weight-for-age (WAZ), height-for-age (HAZ), BMI-for-age (BAZ) and a CIAF were computed using WHO and synthetic charts; Student's t-test was used for assessing differences and Youden's index for validity. Results: Disease status of children and anthropometric failure on WAZ, HAZ, BAZ and CIAF on both WHO and synthetic charts had a significant association (P-value <0.05). WAZ, HAZ on both charts and CIAF on synthetic chart had a fair to moderate agreement (Kappa statistics) with disease status as per diagnosis (P-value <0.05). The sensitivity and negative predictive value for all anthropometric parameters were higher for synthetic charts. Conclusion: Indian charts were more sensitive for diagnosing growth-related disorders from birth to 60 months of age when compared to WHO growth standards.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To assess nutritional status of apparently-healthy under-five Indian children using Composite Index of Anthropometric Failure (CIAF) and to compare anthropometric failure prevalence using conventional indices and CIAF on World Health Organization (WHO) vs. synthetic Indian growth charts. METHODS: This observational study was conducted over 2 y. The inclusion criteria was apparently-healthy children (0-60 mo) and the exclusion criteria were acute/chronic illness and small for gestational age. RESULTS: A total of 1557 children (762 girls) were included in the study. The mean age of the subjects was 21 mo. The Z-scores for height, weight, body mass index (BMI) for age and weight for height in children were lower on WHO vs. synthetic charts (p = 0.0001). Significantly higher proportion of children were moderately and severely underweight, stunted and wasted on WHO charts. Synthetic charts identified significantly higher proportion as normal for weight, height, BMI for age, weight for height, overweight (overall), and a higher prevalence of severe stunting, and severe acute malnutrition (SAM) was noted among girls compared to boys. Using CIAF, 54.1% children were normal on WHO charts vs. 78.0% on synthetic (p = 0.0001). Larger proportion of girls (8.8%) were stunted+underweight (category-E) vs. boys (4.3%) on synthetic charts (p = 0.0003). Significantly higher proportion of children demonstrated failure (single/dual/multiple) on WHO charts except category-Y (higher proportion of underweight on synthetic charts). Maximum difference in CIAF (WHO vs. synthetic) was observed between 0-24 mo age. Of 1215 children normal on synthetic charts, 837 (68.9%) were normal on WHO charts. Of 116 underweight children (category-Y) on synthetic charts, 20 (17.2%) were underweight on WHO charts; remaining had compound failure (wasting+underweight = 49.1%, wasting+stunting+underweight = 14.7%, stunting+underweight = 12.1%) on WHO charts. Among those stunted+underweight (category-E) on synthetic charts, WHO charts classified 1/4th as wasted+stunted+underweight (category-D). CONCLUSIONS: Synthetic references are more representative of Indian growth patterns, and seem more appropriate for monitoring growth of Indian children to avoid mislabelling as malnourished.