Villalobos-Alcázar G, Guzmán-Bárcenas J, Alonso VP, Ortiz-Rodríguez V, Casanueva E

Language: Spanish
References: 13
Page: 74-79
PDF size: 612.85 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To determine intra and inter observer variability by means to calculation of variation coefficient and average of disagreement in perinatal anthropometric.
Methodology: We carried out a transversal study. The measurements were carried out by 3 observers from January 1° to June 30 2001, being included 169 new born.
Results: The cephalic perimeter showed the smallest intra observer variability, with coefficient of variation of 0.10%, the measurement of thigh perimeter the coefficient was possible to reduce to 0.59% and in supine longitude to 0.68%. The smallest observer variability was in cephalic perimeter with a percentage of disagreement of 0.73, and the adult in perimeter of thigh with 2.8%.
Conclusions: The cephalic perimeter is the mensuration more reproductive, while the perimeter of thig is the minor. Whit an appropiate standarization program it is feasible to reach a smaller interobservater variability to 3% in anthropometric neonatal indicators.

REFERENCES

1. WHO. Physical status: The use and interpretation of anthropometry. Report of a WHO Expert Committee. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 1995; 854: 1-452.

2. Georgieff MK, Sasanow SR, Mammel MC, Pereira GR. Mid-arm circumference/head circumference ratios for identification of symptomatic LGA, AGA and SGA newborn infants. J Pediatr 1986; 109: 316-21.

3. Sasanow SR, Georgieff MK, Pereira GR. Midarm circumference and mid-arm circumference/head ratios: Standard curves for anthropometric assessment of neonatal nutritional status. J Pediatr 1986; 109: 311-5.

4. Georgieff MK, Sasanow SR, Chockalingam UM, Pereira GR. A comparison of the midarm circumference/head circumference ratio and ponderal index for the evaluation of newborn infants after abnormal intrauterine growth. Acta Ped Scand 1988; 77: 214-9.

5. Gross SJ. Head growth and developmental outcome in very low birthweight infants. Pediatrics 1983, 71: 70.

6. Leleiko NS. The nutritional assessment of the pediatric patient. In Grand RJ. Pediatric Nutrition Theory and Practice. Boston, Butterworths 1987; 396-9.

7. Briend A, Wojtyniak B, Rowland MGM. Arm circunference and other factors in children at high risk of death in rural Bangladesh. Lancet 1987: 2: 725-8.

8. van´t Horf MA, Haschke F. The Euro-Growth study: Why, who and how. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2000; 31 (Suppl 1): s3-13.

9. Lohman TG, Roche AF, Martorell R (Eds.). Anthropometric standardization. Reference Manual, Illinois, Human Kinetics Books, Champaign. 1998.

10. Fajardo Gutiérrez A, Yamoto-Kimura L, Garduño-Espinosa J, Hernández-Hernández DM. Consistencia y validez de una medición en la investigación clínica pediátrica. Definición y evaluación y su interpretación. Bol Med Hosp Infant Mex 1991; 48: 367-81.

11. Hermansen MG, Hermansen MC. The influence of equipment weights on neonatal daily weight measurements. Neonatal New 1999; 18: 33-6.

12. Johnson TS, Engstrom JL, Haney SL, Mulcrone SL. Reliability of three length measurement techniques in term infants. Pediatr Nurs 1999; 25: 13-7.

13. Johnson TS, Ergstrom JL, Gelhar DK. Intra and inter examiner reliability of anthropometric measurements of term infants. Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 1997; 24: 497-505.