Neonatal length inaccuracies in clinical practice and related percentile discrepancies detected by a simple length‐board

Anna J Wood; Camille H Raynes‐Greenow; Angela E Carberry; Heather E Jeffery

doi:10.1111/jpc.12119

journal article Feb 22, 2013

Neonatal length inaccuracies in clinical practice and related percentile discrepancies detected by a simple length‐board

Anna J Wood Camille H Raynes‐Greenow Angela E Carberry Heather E Jeffery

Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health Vol. 49 No. 3 pp. 199-203 · Wiley

View at Publisher Save 10.1111/jpc.12119

Abstract

AimThe study aims to assess accuracy of standard practice measurement of neonatal length compared with a gold‐standard length‐board technique.MethodsData were obtained from a population‐based, cross‐sectional study of 602 term babies at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia, in 2010. Neonatal length was measured by standard clinical practice and by a length‐board (gold standard) and measurements compared. Standard growth curve percentiles were used to plot length measurements. The Bland and Altman method was used to assess agreement, and acceptable levels of agreement were set at ≤1 cm and ≤0.5 cm.ResultsThe limits of agreement were between −3.06 cm (95% CI −3.08 to −3.04) and 2.67 cm (95% CI 2.65 to 2.69). Neonates whose standard‐practice length fell within 0.5 cm of the gold standard totalled 41% (241 neonates), while 59% (342) were >0.5 cm. The change in length resulted in a change in the percentile range of 53% (309) on a standard growth curve percentile. When examining neonates whose length was plotted at the extremes of percentile regions, the positive predictive value results of the standard practice compared with the gold standard were poor, with positive predictive values of 37.5%, 57.1% and 31.3% for neonates who were measured as <3rd, <10th and ≥90th percentile, respectively.ConclusionsIn current clinical practice, measures of neonatal length are often inaccurate, which has implications for potentially erroneous clinical care. Health‐care providers should be educated on the importance of length and trained in how to measure length with the correct technique using a length‐board.

Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References

28

[1]

10.2471/blt.08.057901

[2]

10.1542/peds.107.5.e75

[3]

Maternal and child undernutrition: consequences for adult health and human capital

Cesar G Victora, Linda Adair, Caroline Fall et al.

The Lancet 10.1016/s0140-6736(07)61692-4

[4]

10.1016/s0140-6736(73)93276-5

[5]

WHO Multicentre Growth Reference Study Group "WHO Child Growth Standards based on length/height, weight and age" Acta Paediatr. Suppl. (2006) 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2006.tb02378.x

[6]

Hamill PV "NCHS growth curves for children birth‐18 years. United States" Vital Health Stat. 11 (1977)

[7]

British 1990 growth reference centiles for weight, height, body mass index and head circumference fitted by maximum penalized likelihood

T. J. Cole, J. V. Freeman, M. A. Preece

Statistics in Medicine 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19980228)17:4<407::aid-sim742>3.0.co;2-l

[8]

Worldwide Timing of Growth Faltering: Revisiting Implications for Interventions

Cesar Gomes Victora, Mercedes de Onis, Pedro Curi Hallal et al.

Pediatrics 10.1542/peds.2009-1519

[9]

10.1097/mpg.0b013e31815d6968

[10]

10.1177/156482650903000205

[11]

10.1136/adc.88.7.574

[12]

10.1093/jn/122.5.1105

[13]

10.1136/adc.2003.030072

[14]

10.1097/00005176-199705000-00001

[15]

10.1111/j.1552-6909.1998.tb02649.x

[16]

Lohman TG (1988)

[17]

10.1136/adc.47.256.938

[18]

STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT

J. Martin Bland, DouglasG. Altman

The Lancet 10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8

[19]

10.1136/adc.66.7.833

[20]

Rifas‐Shiman SL "Misdiagnosis of overweight and underweight children younger than 2 years of age due to length measurement bias" MedGenMed (2005)

[21]

10.1542/peds.109.6.1108

[22]

10.1111/j.1440-1754.1996.tb00965.x

[23]

Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.

Patrick E. Shrout, Joseph L. Fleiss

Psychological Bulletin 10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420

[24]

Johnson TS "Reliability of three length measurement techniques in term infants" Pediatr. Nurs. (1999)

[25]

10.1016/s0891-5245(00)53388-4

[26]

10.3109/01421599209044013

[27]

10.1046/j.1365-2923.2004.01785.x

[28]

10.1016/j.ijgo.2008.10.008

Cited By

86

NICU Diet, Physical Growth and Nutrient Accretion, and Preterm Infant Brain Development

Mandy Brown Belfort, Sara E. Ramel · 2019

NeoReviews

Metrics

86

Citations

28

References

Details

Published: Feb 22, 2013
Vol/Issue: 49(3)
Pages: 199-203
License: View

Authors

A

Anna J Wood

Sydney Medical School

C

Camille H Raynes‐Greenow

School of Public Health University of Sydney

A

Angela E Carberry

School of Public Health University of Sydney; Newborn Care Royal Prince Alfred Hospital Sydney New South Wales Australia

H

Heather E Jeffery

School of Public Health University of Sydney; Newborn Care Royal Prince Alfred Hospital Sydney New South Wales Australia

Cite This Article

Anna J Wood, Camille H Raynes‐Greenow, Angela E Carberry, et al. (2013). Neonatal length inaccuracies in clinical practice and related percentile discrepancies detected by a simple length‐board. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 49(3), 199-203. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpc.12119

Neonatal length inaccuracies in clinical practice and related percentile discrepancies detected by a simple length‐board

You May Also Like