Determining an anthropometric surrogate measure for identifying low birth weight babies in Uganda: a hospital-based cross sectional study

BMC Pediatrics

Kolsteren Patrick¹  Orach Garimoi Christopher²  Nabiwemba L Elizabeth² 

[1] Institute of Tropical Medicine, Nationalstraat 155, Antwerp, B-2000, Belgium;School of Public Health, Makerere University College of Health Sciences, P. O. Box 7072, Kampala, Uganda

关键词: Low birth weight anthropometric measurements predictor;   

Others  :  1145013
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2431-13-54

 received in 2012-11-08, accepted in 2013-04-08,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Achieving Millennium Development Goal 4 is dependent on significantly reducing neonatal mortality. Low birth weight is an underlying factor in most neonatal deaths. In developing countries the missed opportunity for providing life saving care is mainly a result of failure to identify low birth weight newborns. This study aimed at identifying a reliable anthropometric measurement for screening low birth weight and determining an operational cut-off point in the Uganda setting. This simple measurement is required because of lack of weighing scales in the community, and sometimes in the health facilities.

Methods

This was a hospital-based cross-sectional study. Two midwives weighed 706 newborns and measured their foot length, head, chest, thigh and mid-upper arm circumferences within 24 hours after birth.

Data was analysed using STATA version 10.0. Correlation with birth weight using Pearson’s correlation coefficient and Receiver Operating Characteristics curve analysis were done to determine the measure that best predicts birth weight. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for a range of measures to obtain operational cut-off points; and Likelihood Ratios and Diagnostic Odds Ratio were determined for each cut-off point.

Results

Birth weights ranged from 1370–5350 grams with a mean of 3050 grams (SD 0.53) and 85 (12%) babies weighed less than 2500 grams. All anthropometric measurements had a positive correlation with birth weight, with foot length showing the strongest (r = 0.76) and thigh circumference the weakest (r = 0.62) correlations. Foot length had the highest predictive value for low birth weight (AUC = 0.97) followed by mid-upper arm circumference (AUC = 0.94). Foot length and chest circumference had the highest sensitivity (94%) and specificity (90%) respectively for screening low birth weight babies at the selected cut-off points. Chest circumference had a significantly higher positive likelihood ratio (8.7) than any other measure, and foot length had the lowest negative likelihood ratio. Chest circumference and foot length had diagnostic odds ratios of 97% and 77% respectively. Foot length was easier to measure and it involved minimal exposure of the baby to cold. A cut-off of foot length 7.9 cm had sensitivity of 94% and specificity of 83% for predicting low birth weight.

Conclusions

This study suggests foot length as the most appropriate predictor for low birth weight in comparison to chest, head, mid-upper arm and thigh circumference in the Uganda setting. Use of low cost and easy to use tools to identify low birth weight babies by village health teams could support community efforts to save newborns.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Elizabeth et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]UNICEF: Levels and trends in child mortality report 2011. Estimates developed by the UN inter-agency group for child mortality estimation. UNICEF New York, USA; 2011.
• [2]Liu L, Johnson HL, Cousens S, Perin J, Scott S, Lawn JE, Rudan I, Campbell H, Cibulskis R, Li M: Global, regional, and national causes of child mortality: an updated systematic analysis for 2010 with time trends since 2000. Lancet 2012, 379(9832):2151-2161.
• [3]WHO: National and perinatal mortality. In Country, regional and global estimates 2004. Edited by Safer MP. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2007.
• [4]Ministry of Health: Situation analysis of newborn health in Uganda: Current status and opportunities to improve care and survival. Kampala: Government of Uganda, Save the children, UNICEF, WHO; 2008.
• [5]Lawn JE, Kerber K, Enweronu-Laryea C, Bateman OM: Newborn survival in low resource settings-are we delivering? Int J Gynecol Obstet 2009, 116:49-59.
• [6]Baqui AH, Ahmed S, El Arifeen S, Darmstadt GL, Rosecrans AM, Mannan I, Rahman SM, Begum N, Mahmud ABA, Seraji HR: Effect of timing of first postnatal care home visit on neonatal mortality in Bangladesh: a observational cohort study. BMJ 2009, 339:b2826. 14 August 2009
• [7]WHO: Home visits for the newborn baby: a strategy to improve survival - WHO/UNICEF Joint Statement. WHO Geneva, Switzerland; 2009.
• [8]Sajjadian N, Shajari H, Rahimi F, Jahadi R, Barakat MG: Anthropometric measurements at birth as predictors of low birth weight. Health 2011, 3(12):752-756.
• [9]Sreeramareddy CT, Chuni N, Patil R, Singh D, Shakya B: Anthropometric surrogates to identify low birth weight Nepalese newborns: a hospital-based study. BMC Pediatr 2008, 8:16. 25 April 2008 BioMed Central Full Text
• [10]Taksande A, Vilhekar KY, Chaturvedi P, Gupta S, Deshmukh P: Predictor of low birth weight babies by anthropometry. J Trop Pediatr 2007, 53(6):420-423.
• [11]Mullany LC, Darmstadt GL, Khatry SK, LeClerq SC, Tielsch JM: Relationship between the surrogate anthropometric measures, foot length and chest circumference and birth weight among newborns of Sarlahi. Nepal Eur J Clin Nutr 2007, 61(1):40-46.
• [12]Bhat IA, Dhar GM, Shah GN, Neelofar K, Shehzada A: Efficiency of various anthropometric measurements in determining low birth weight babies. Indian J Matern Child Health 1995, 6(2):40-42.
• [13]Naik DB, Kulkarni AP, Aswar NR: Birth weight and anthropometry of newborns. Indian J Pediatr 2003, 70(2):145-146.
• [14]Das JC, Afroze A, Khanam ST, Paul N: Mid-arm circumference: an alternative measure for screening low birth weight babies. Bangladesh Med Res Counc Bull 2005, 31(1):1-6.
• [15]Tapare VS, Borle PS: Evaluation of arm and thigh circumference in screening low birth weight newborns. Indian J Public Health 2006, 50(1):58-59.
• [16]Kadam YR, Somaiya P, Kakade SV: A study of surrogate parameters of birth weight. Indian J Community Med 2005, 30(3):89-91.
• [17]Marchant T, Jaribu J, Penfold S, Tanner M, Schellenberg JA: Measuring newborn foot length to identify small babies in need of extra care: a cross sectional hospital-based study with community follow-up in Tanzania. BMC Public Health 2010, 10:624. 19 Oct 2010 BioMed Central Full Text
• [18]Raman L, Neela J, Balakrishna N: Comparative evaluation of calf, thigh and arm circumferences in detecting low birth weight infants–Part II. Indian Pediatr 1992, 29(4):481-484.
• [19]Dhar B, Mowlah G, Nahar S, Islam N: Birth-weight status of newborns and its relationship with other anthropometric parameters in a public maternity hospital in Dhaka, Bangladesh. J Health Popul Nutr 2002, 20(1):36-41.
• [20]Buderer NM: Statistical methodology: I. Incorporating the prevalence of disease into the sample size calculation for sensitivity and specificity. Acad Emerg Med 1996, 3(9):895-900.
• [21]Dancey C, Reidy J: Statistics without maths for psychology: using SPSS for windows. London: Prentice Hall; 2004.
• [22]Wabwire-Mangen F, Kigozi G, Gray RH: Estimation of birth weight and gestational age during the first two weeks of life among home deliveries. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2002, 79(3):255-257.