Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 12, 2026

Assessment of Child Anthropometry in a Large Epidemiologic Study
Published on: February 2, 2017
Growth Monitoring of Children Under Five Years Using National Reference Charts Versus International Growth Standards,
Bancy Ngatia1, Linda Vesel2, Eric O Ohuma1
1Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Insights
International growth charts significantly alter growth metrics for children under five compared to national references. These differences impact the identification of at-risk infants, highlighting the need for careful chart selection in pediatric care.
Area of Science:
- Pediatric Growth Monitoring
- Public Health Surveillance
- Comparative Growth Analysis
Background:
- Growth charts are essential tools for monitoring child development against population averages.
- Accurate growth assessment is critical for identifying potential health issues in early childhood.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate how international growth charts (INTERGROWTH-21st and WHO Child Growth) affect growth metrics in children under five when compared to national charts.
- To understand the implications of using different growth chart standards on the classification of pediatric growth parameters.
Main Methods:
- A systematic literature search was conducted across major databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science).
- Studies published between 2007-2023 comparing national charts with INTERGROWTH-21st or WHO Child Growth charts were included.
- Growth metrics like z-scores and centiles were analyzed to compare prevalence rates of SGA, LGA, stunting, wasting, underweight, overweight, and obesity.
Main Results:
- Local reference charts often reported higher z-scores/centiles for weight, length, and head circumference compared to WHO Child Growth standards.
- Seven out of 11 studies found higher rates of small-for-gestational age (SGA) using local references versus international standards.
- Four out of five studies indicated lower rates of large-for-gestational age (LGA) when using local references compared to INTERGROWTH-21st standards.
Conclusions:
- Significant discrepancies exist between national and international growth assessment standards.
- These differences have critical implications for accurately identifying infants and children at risk due to growth deviations.
- The choice of growth chart significantly influences clinical decisions and public health interventions related to child growth.
Background:
Growth charts are commonly used for monitoring attained size at a specified age relative to a population average considered to represent expected growth.
Objectives:
To evaluate the impact of the application of international growth charts for children under five on common growth metrics when compared to national reference charts.
Search Strategy:
We conducted a systematic literature search across five electronic databases: CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost), EMBASE (Ovid), MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, and Web of Science.
Selection Criteria:
Studies published in English between 2007 and 2023 that made comparisons between national reference charts and either INTERGROWTH-21st (IG-21st) or WHO Child Growth (WHO CGS) charts.
Data Collection And Analysis:
Common growth metrics were compared using either z-scores or centiles. The prevalence of small- and large-for-gestational age, stunting, wasting, underweight, overweight, and obesity was compared when calculated using international standards versus national charts.
Main Results:
We identified 1556 records, of which 314 were excluded as they were duplicates, 1069 after reading the title and abstract, 90 after reading the full texts, and 7 we could not retrieve the full texts. Z-score or centile values of local references were more often reported to be higher than values of WHO CGS when evaluating weight-, length-, or head circumference- for- age. Seven of 11 studies reported higher rates of small-for-gestational age, while four of five studies reported lower rates of large-for-gestational age using local references compared to IG-21st standards.
Conclusions:
Meaningful differences exist in growth assessment between national and international charts that have implications for identifying at-risk infants.
Related Concept Videos
Nature and Nurture
Population Growth
Microbial Growth Measurement: Indirect Methods
Variation: Normal Distribution, Range, and Standard Deviation
Microbial Growth Measurement: Direct Methods
Oxygen Requirements and Growth Patterns

