Abstract
Background Height is a key component of nutrition assessments in children from limited-resource settings. Traditional measurement boards are bulky and difficult to transport. We aimed to assess whether a handheld digital ultrasound device provides comparable accuracy to the measurement board for measuring children’s height.
Methods We trained 12 health workers to measure the standing height of 222 children aged 2-5 years in rural Lao People’s Democratic Republic using the ultrasound device and measurement board. The Bland-Altman method was used to depict limits of agreement and potential bias. We reported the technical error of measurement (TEM) for precision, accuracy and assessed results against the Standardized Monitoring and Assessment for Relief and Transition (SMART) Manual 2.0 and the WHO Multicentre Growth Reference Study (MGRS).
Results The average difference between the ultrasound and board measurements was 0.096 cm (95% limits-of-agreement: 0.041cm, 0.61cm) with a systematic bias of 0.1cm (95% confidence interval: 0.067,0.134), suggesting the ultrasound measurements measured slightly higher than those from the board. The ultrasound and board TEMs for precision were 0.157cm and 0.113 respectively. The accuracy TEM was 0.208cm. All TEMs were within SMART and WHO MGRS limits.
Conclusion The ultrasound device is comparable to the measurement board among standing Lao children aged 2-5 years for precision and accuracy TEMs but showed a bias of 0.1cm. Further studies are required to assess whether calibration of device can minimise this bias and determine the ultrasound’s accuracy on recumbent length for infants and younger children.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was financially supported by the Burnet Institute and was awarded to Shan Huang. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to public, or preparation of hte manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the ALFRED HOPITAL, Melbourne, Australia (142/22, approved: 3 May 2022) and the National Ethics Committee for Health Research, MINISTRY OF HEALTH, Lao PDR (2022:15. Approved 12 May 2022).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data is presented in this study are opening available in Monash University Bridges (Figshare) online repository at DOI: 10.26180/22678663.
