Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Dr Margaret Wright
Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.
Since the introduction of new growth charts in the mid 1990s, there has been confusion about which charts should be used, with many districts using more than one version. Because of this uncertainty, an expert working party, the Growth Reference Review Group, was convened by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health to provide guidance on the validity and comparability of the different, charts currently in use. This paper describes the technical background to the construction and evaluation of growth charts and outlines the group's findings on the validity of each growth reference in relation to contemporary British children. The group concluded that for most clinical purposes the UK90 reference is superior and for many measures is the only usable reference that can be recommended, while the original Tanner-Whitehouse and the Gairdner-Pearson charts are no longer reliable for use, at any age. After the age of 2 the revised Buckler-Tanner references are still suitable for assessing height. There are presently no reliable head circumference reference charts for use beyond infancy. The group propose that apart from refinements of chart design and layout, the new UK90 reference should now be ''frozen'', with any future revisions only undertaken after careful planning and widespread consultation.
Author(s): Wright CM, Booth IW, Buckler JMH, Cameron N, Cole TJ, Healy MJR, Hulse JA, Preece MA, Reilly JJ, Williams AF
Publication type: Article
Publication status: Published
Journal: Archives of Disease in Childhood
ISSN (print): 0003-9888
Publisher: BMJ Group
Altmetrics provided by Altmetric