4.3 Review

The development of growth references and growth charts

期刊

ANNALS OF HUMAN BIOLOGY
卷 39, 期 5, 页码 382-394

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/03014460.2012.694475

关键词

Growth charts; growth references; anthropometry

资金

  1. MRC [G0700961, MR/J004839/1, G0400546] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Medical Research Council [G0700961, G0400546B, G0400546, MR/J004839/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context: De Montbeillard produced the first growth chart in the late 18th century. Since then, growth assessment has developed to become an essential component of child health practice. Objective: To provide a brief history of (i) anthropometry, i.e. growth measurements; (ii) growth references, the statistical summary of anthropometry and (iii) growth charts, the visual representation of growth references for clinical use. Methods: The major contributors in the three categories over the past 200 years were identified and their historical contributionsput in context with more recent developments. Results: Anthropometry was originally collected for administrative or public health purposes, its medical role emerging at the end of the 19th century. Growth reference data were collected in earnest from the 19th century, during which time the familiar statistical summary statistics-mean, SD, centiles-were developed. More advanced statistical methods emerged much later. Growth charts first appeared in the late 19th century and Tanner and Whitehouse later popularized the concepts of velocity and conditional references for growth in puberty. An important recent reference is the WHO growth standard, which documents optimal growth and has been adopted by many countries including the UK. Arising from it, the UK-WHO charts have pioneered many design features to improve usability and accuracy. Conclusion: Growth charts have developed considerably in 200 years and they represent an impressive synthesis of anthropometry, statistical summary and chart design.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据