Important: The POPLINE website will retire on September 1, 2019. Click here to read about the transition.

Your search found 2 Results

  1. 1

    [Analysis of children's nutritional status based on WHO children growth standard in China]

    Wang Y; Chen C; He W

    Wei Sheng Yan Jiu. 2007 Mar; 36(2):203-6.

    OBJECTIVE: To compare children's growth patterns and estimates of malnutrition using the WHO standards versus the NCHS reference in China. METHODS: Data originated from China children nutrition surveillance in 2005, Z-scores and prevalence of malnutrition were compared between standards. RESULTS: There was substantial difference in Z-scores between standards in rural (P < 0.0001). According to the WHO standards, prevalence of underweight in rural was lower than that of underweight based on the NCHS reference (6.1% . vs. 8.6%, P < 0.0001). Except for children under 6 months, all age groups underweight rates were lower according to the WHO standards. Prevalence of stunting in rural was higher based on the WHO standards (16.3% . vs. 13.0%, P < 0.0001), prevalences of stunting under 6 months were 2.1 times of that based on NCHS reference. As for wasting, there were no differences between standards, but wasting was substantially higher during the first half of infancy. Overweight rates based on the WHO standards were higher than those based on NCHS reference in urban (6.7% . vs. 5.4%, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In comparison with NCHS reference, population estimates of malnutrition would vary by age, growth indicator based on WHO standards. The WHO standards could provide a better tool to monitor the rapid and changing rate of growth in early infancy, further analysis on existing data was needed.
    Add to my documents.
  2. 2
    Peer Reviewed

    Infant growth and health outcomes associated with 3 compared with 6 mo of exclusive breastfeeding.

    Kramer MS; Guo T; Platt RW; Sevkovskaya Z; Dzikovich I

    American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2003 Aug; 78(2):291-295.

    Background: Opinions and recommendations about the optimal duration of exclusive breastfeeding have been strongly divided, but few published studies have provided direct evidence on the relative risks and benefits of different breastfeeding durations in recipient infants. Objective: We examined the effects on infant growth and health of 3 compared with 6 mo of exclusive breastfeeding. Design: We conducted an observational cohort study nested within a large randomized trial in Belarus by comparing 2862 infants exclusively breastfed for 3 mo (with continued mixed breastfeeding through = 6 mo) with 621 infants who were exclusively breastfed for = 6 mo. Regression to the mean, within-cluster correlation, and cluster- and individual-level confounding variables were accounted for by using multilevel regression analyses. Results: From 3 to 6 mo, weight gain was slightly greater in the 3-mo group [difference: 29 g/mo (95% CI: 13, 45 g/mo)], as was length gain [difference: 1.1 mm (0.5, 1.6 mm)], but the 6-mo group had a faster length gain from 9 to 12 mo [difference: 0.9 mm/mo (0.3, 1.5 mm/mo)] and a larger head circumference at 12 mo [difference: 0.19 cm (0.07, 0.31 cm)]. A significant reduction in the incidence density of gastrointestinal infection was observed during the period from 3 to 6 mo in the 6-mo group [adjusted incidence density ratio: 0.35 (0.13, 0.96)], but no significant differences in risk of respiratory infectious outcomes or atopic eczema were apparent. Conclusions: Exclusive breastfeeding for 6 mo is associated with a lower risk of gastrointestinal infection and no demonstrable adverse health effects in the first year of life. (author's)
    Add to my documents.