File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: World variation in head circumference for children from birth to 5 years and a comparison with the WHO standards

TitleWorld variation in head circumference for children from birth to 5 years and a comparison with the WHO standards
Authors
Issue Date16-Mar-2023
PublisherBMJ Publishing Group
Citation
Archives of Disease in Childhood, 2023, v. 108, n. 5 How to Cite?
Abstract

Objective
A recent review reported that the WHO 2006 growth standards reflect a smaller head circumference at 24 months than seen in 18 countries. Whether this happens in early infancy and to what extent populations differ is not clear. This scooping review aimed to estimate the rates of children in different populations identified as macrocephalic or microcephalic by WHO standards.
Methods
We reviewed population-representative head circumference-for-age references. For each reference, we calculated the percentages of head circumferences that would be classified as microcephalic (<3rd WHO centile) or macrocephalic (>97th WHO centile) at selected ages.
Results
Twelve references from 11 countries/regions (Belgium, China, Ethiopia, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Japan, Norway, Saudi Arabia, UK and USA) were included. Median head circumference was larger than that for the Multicentre Growth Reference Study populations in both sexes in all these populations except for Japanese and Chinese children aged 1 month and Indians. Overall, at 12/24 months, 8%–9% children would be classified as macrocephalic and 2% would be classified as microcephalic, compared with the expected 3%. However, at 1 month, there were geographic differences in the rate of macrocephaly (6%–10% in Europe vs 1%–2% in Japan and China) and microcephaly (1%–3% vs 6%–14%, respectively).
Conclusions
​​​​​​​Except for Indians and some Asian neonates, adopting the WHO head circumference
standards would overdiagnose macrocephaly and underdiagnose microcephaly. Local population-specific cut-offs or references are more appropriate for many populations. There is a need to educate healthcare professionals about the limitations of the WHO head circumference standards.


Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/328418
ISSN
2021 Impact Factor: 4.920
2020 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.037

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHui, LL-
dc.contributor.authorHo, FK-
dc.contributor.authorWright, CM-
dc.contributor.authorCole, TJ-
dc.contributor.authorLam, HS-
dc.contributor.authorDeng, HB-
dc.contributor.authorSo, HK-
dc.contributor.authorIp, P-
dc.contributor.authorNelson, EAS-
dc.date.accessioned2023-06-28T04:44:45Z-
dc.date.available2023-06-28T04:44:45Z-
dc.date.issued2023-03-16-
dc.identifier.citationArchives of Disease in Childhood, 2023, v. 108, n. 5-
dc.identifier.issn0003-9888-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/328418-
dc.description.abstract<p>Objective <br>A recent review reported that the WHO 2006 growth standards reflect a smaller head circumference at 24 months than seen in 18 countries. Whether this happens in early infancy and to what extent populations differ is not clear. This scooping review aimed to estimate the rates of children in different populations identified as macrocephalic or microcephalic by WHO standards.<br>Methods <br>We reviewed population-representative head circumference-for-age references. For each reference, we calculated the percentages of head circumferences that would be classified as microcephalic (<3rd WHO centile) or macrocephalic (>97th WHO centile) at selected ages.<br>Results <br>Twelve references from 11 countries/regions (Belgium, China, Ethiopia, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Japan, Norway, Saudi Arabia, UK and USA) were included. Median head circumference was larger than that for the Multicentre Growth Reference Study populations in both sexes in all these populations except for Japanese and Chinese children aged 1 month and Indians. Overall, at 12/24 months, 8%–9% children would be classified as macrocephalic and 2% would be classified as microcephalic, compared with the expected 3%. However, at 1 month, there were geographic differences in the rate of macrocephaly (6%–10% in Europe vs 1%–2% in Japan and China) and microcephaly (1%–3% vs 6%–14%, respectively).<br>Conclusions <br>​​​​​​​Except for Indians and some Asian neonates, adopting the WHO head circumference<br>standards would overdiagnose macrocephaly and underdiagnose microcephaly. Local population-specific cut-offs or references are more appropriate for many populations. There is a need to educate healthcare professionals about the limitations of the WHO head circumference standards.</p>-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherBMJ Publishing Group-
dc.relation.ispartofArchives of Disease in Childhood-
dc.titleWorld variation in head circumference for children from birth to 5 years and a comparison with the WHO standards-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_version-
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/archdischild-2022-324661-
dc.identifier.volume108-
dc.identifier.issue5-
dc.identifier.eissn1468-2044-
dc.identifier.issnl0003-9888-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats