
==== Front
BMJ Paediatr Open
BMJ Paediatr Open
bmjpo
bmjpo
BMJ Paediatrics Open
2399-9772
BMJ Publishing Group BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR

39214548
10.1136/bmjpo-2024-002717
bmjpo-2024-002717
Original Research
Neonatology
1506
Assessing the diagnostic accuracy of postnatal clinical scoring methods and foot length measurement for estimating gestational age and birthweight of newborns in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8828-8325
Tikmani Shiyam Sunder 12shiyam.sunder@kbh.uu.se

Mårtensson Thomas 1thomas.martensson@kbh.uu.se

Khalid Sumaira 3sarasanic@gmail.com

Uzair Muhammad 2muhammad.uzair4@scholar.aku.edu

Ali Qammerulanissa 2qammerulnisa.ali@aku.edu

Rahim Anum 4anum.rahim@aku.edu

Mårtensson Andreas 1andreas.martensson@kbh.uu.se

Saleem Sarah 2sarah.saleem@aku.edu

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1789-0436
Brown Nick 1nick.brown@kbh.uu.se

1 Global health and migration unit, Department of Women’s & Children’s Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
2 Population and Reproductive Health Section, Department of Community Health Sciences, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan
3 Department of Public Health, College of Health Professions Marshall University, Huntington, West Virginia, USA
4 Epidemiology and Biostatistic Section, Department of Community Health Sciences, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Additional supplemental material is published online only. To view, please visit the journal online (https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2024-002717).

None declared.

Dr; shiyam.sunder@kbh.uu.se
2024
30 8 2024
8 1 e00271722 4 2024
11 8 2024
Copyright © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Abstract

Background

This study aimed to update systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the diagnostic accuracy of postnatal clinical scoring (PCS) methods and foot length (FL) measurement for assessing gestational age (GA) and birth weight in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). In addition, the quality of reference standards, including antenatal ultrasound (A-US), last menstrual period (LMP), PCS and newborn weighing scales, was also evaluated.

Methods

Studies from LMICs published between January 2000 and February 2024 were searched, using databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and Scopus. Studies that compared PCS and/or FL with LMP and/or A-US to estimate GA or used calibrated newborn weighing scales for birthweight estimation were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-II tool and evaluated the quality of the reference standards. When sufficient data were available, pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects models.

Results

A total of 50 studies were included. A-US was a reasonable tool for GA assessment if conducted by physicians using fetal biometry and the Hadlock method for GA estimation. LMP was reasonable when women had regular cycles, knew their LMP, were not using contraceptives and LMP data were collected by healthcare providers. When A-US was used as the reference standard, PCS methods estimated GA with a precision of ±2.8 to ±3.2 weeks. FL measurement <7.5 cm showed a pooled sensitivity of 76.2% and specificity of 36.6% for identifying preterm birth. FL measurement ≤7.6 cm had a pooled sensitivity of 78.6% and specificity of 65.7% for identifying low birth weight (LBW). High heterogeneity across studies was observed.

Conclusion

This systematic review and meta-analysis highlights significant variability and methodological inconsistencies in using PCS methods and FL measurement for estimating GA and LBW in LMICs. The observed high heterogeneity across studies suggests a cautious interpretation of the results.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42020209455.

Neonatology
==== Body
pmcWHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC

One in five newborns in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) is born prematurely or with low birth weight (LBW), increasing their susceptibility to neonatal mortality. Early detection and intervention for these infants can be life-saving.

Postnatal clinical scoring (PCS) methods and foot length (FL) measurements are commonly used to estimate gestational age (GA) and LBW in LMICs.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

PCS methods such as Ballard Score and Dubowitz Score tend to overestimate GA while the Eregie scoring model underestimates it due to high variability across the studies.

The diagnostic accuracy of FL measurements for prematurity and LBW shows varying sensitivity and specificity due to significant methodological differences and high heterogeneity across studies.

HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY

There is an urgent need for standardised GA and birthweight measurement protocols, as well as consensus on reference standards, to improve the reliability and accuracy of PCS and FL assessments in LMICs.

Enhancing these diagnostic tools will lead to better clinical decision-making and improved neonatal outcomes, particularly in diverse and resource-limited healthcare settings.

Policies should prioritise skill development, quality assurance and supportive supervision for healthcare providers conducting GA and birthweight assessments.

Introduction

Preterm and low birth weight (LBW) pose significant challenges to neonatal health globally, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).1 2 In 2020, an estimated 13.4 million babies were born preterm,1 and 19.8 million were born with a birth weight <2500 g—LBW, globally.2 Approximately 900 000 preterm newborns die before the age of 5, with the majority of deaths occurring within the first week after birth, particularly in south Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.3 LBW increases the risk of neonatal mortality by nearly 20 times compared with normal-weighted infants.4 The causes of death due to preterm birth and LBW are often preventable, emphasising the importance of early detection and prompt management.5

Antenatal ultrasound (A-US) is the gold-standard method for estimating gestational age (GA).6 7 However, its use in LMICs is limited due to factors such as limited availability, inadequate maintenance of US devices, late presentation of pregnant women for antenatal care (ANC) and high cost.810 In settings where access to A-US is limited, the last menstrual period (LMP) is often used to estimate GA, but this method is prone to errors due to inaccurate recall or irregular menstrual cycles or women on contraception 3 months prior to conception or breastfeed at the time of conception.11 Postnatal clinical scoring (PCS) methods and foot length (FL) measurements have been established to identify preterm birth newborns and LBW.12 The Ballard and Dubowitz scores (DS) assess GA via physical and neurological newborn examinations,12 13 and the Eregie scoring model (ESM) determines newborn maturation using physical examination and anthropometric measurements.12 Anthropometric measurements such as mid-upper arm circumference, head and chest circumference and FL were tested to identify preterm and LBW. For this review, we selected FL measurement due to its simplicity, which makes it feasible for scaling up. FL measurement can be performed with locally available, low-cost tools such as a rigid transparent ruler, and it can be done with minimal handling of the baby.14

Two high-quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses, published in 201612 on neonatal clinical examination including BS, DS, ESM and other methods of GA assessment and in 202015 on diagnostic accuracy of FL for identification of preterm and LBW, reported that low quality of studies and high heterogeneity were the major limitations for interpretation. Both reviews also recommended studies with high-quality A-US as reference standard. Additionally, the WHO has emphasised the need for additional research to discover simple, reliable and feasible methods for assessing GA and birth weight in LMICs.16

Therefore, the objectives of this study were (1) to update the existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the diagnostic accuracy of PCS and FL for GA and birthweight assessment in a single review in the LMIC context and (2) to assess the quality of evidence related to reference standards of (1) A-US, (2) LMP, (3) PCS and (4) newborn weighing scales.

Materials and methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis was based on original studies building on a previous review that examined studies up to June 2022. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was used and is available as online supplemental material. The study was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews—PROSPERO CRD42020209455.

Search strategy

Systematic literature searches were conducted using databases including PubMed (Medline), Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Scopus. A librarian (KM) from Aga Khan University, Karachi Pakistan, performed the searches and were exported to EndNote (V.X9, Clarivate Analytics). In this review, ESM, DS and BS were denoted as PCS methods. Detailed search terms are available in online supplemental table 1.

Inclusion criteria

Original studies written in the English language from LMICs, published between 1 January 2000 and 29 February 2024, were included. Studies reported live births and assessed the diagnostic accuracy of PCS and/or FL for determining GA and birth weight, as well as identifying prematurity and LBW were included. Studies using the LMP, A-US, PCS and/or a calibrated newborn weighing scale as reference standard were included. Additionally, studies that used PCS as the reference standard for FL for GA were also included. LMICs were selected due to the significant healthcare challenges in these regions, which have the highest rates of preterm births and LBW. By including studies from the year 2000 onwards, the review aimed to capture contemporary practices and diagnostic standards, reflecting the transition from reliance on LMP to more accurate and widely adopted methods such as A-US and calibrated newborn weighing scales.

Studies reported stillbirths as the study population, reported small for GA as the only outcome, involved children with chromosomal abnormalities or assessed GA on or after day 7 of birth were excluded. Additionally, studies that did not use A-US or LMP as reference standards for GA or did not employ calibrated newborn weighing scales as the reference standard for LBW assessment were excluded. Case reports/series, narrative/scoping reviews, editorials and published abstracts were also excluded.

Case definition

According to the WHO, preterm birth is defined as the birth of a baby <37 weeks of gestation17 and LBW is defined as birth weight <2500 g.18

Data review and extraction procedure

After removing duplicate studies from the EndNote library, two independent reviewers (MU and QA) screened titles and abstracts to identify full-text articles meeting eligibility criteria. We then read full-text articles meeting these criteria and extracted data, including study title, journal, publication year, country, study design, setting (hospital vs community), population characteristics, sampling strategy, sample size, methods of assessing GA, reference standards, descriptive data (preterm birth and LBW frequencies), and diagnostic accuracy and agreement estimates (correlation coefficient, mean difference, SD, diagnostic accuracy measures such as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and Bland Altman’s limits of agreement (LOA)). We entered the data into MS Excel.

Quality assessment of eligible studies

The risk of bias in individual studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool, which evaluates diagnostic studies in four domains: selection of participants, index test, reference standards and flow and timing. Each domain received a score from 0 to 1, indicating a low to high risk of bias. MU and QA independently evaluated methodological quality, resolving disagreements through mutual discussion. If a consensus was not reached, a third reviewer (SST) reviewed the article for the final decision. In addition to QUADAS-2, we assessed the quality of reference standards, such as A-US and LMP (online supplemental table 2).

Additional calculations

Bland Altman’s LOAs were used to observe any bias in reporting the mean difference between the two compared methods as part of the included studies’ quality and reporting bias assessments. LOA was calculated if studies mentioned either the mean±SD of GA for both test and reference standard methods or the mean difference and SD of the mean difference.19

LOA=Mean difference ±Z ∝2 (SD) 

The 95% CI was calculated for sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and area under the curves, where applicable.20

95% CI=proportion ±Z ∝2 (Standard error of proportion) 

Standard error of proportion= P(1−p)n

Standardised effect size: pooled variance

Reported mean differences were transformed into standardised mean differences to facilitate comparison across heterogeneous studies with varying characteristics. Pooled variances and SDs around the pooled estimates were calculated using the formula.21

 Variance pooled =∑i=1k(ni−1)Si2∑i=1k(ni−1)

Data analysis

Data were summarised and grouped in tables based on methods of GA determination and the reference standard. Data analysis was performed by using STATA V.17 (StataCorp). Meta-analysis was employed when two or more studies had appropriate data for pooled analysis. Individual study-level mean differences between the two GA assessment methods were pooled using the ‘meta esize’ command, providing the pooled mean difference and 95% CI. To account for heterogeneity within the data, a meta-analysis method employing the random effects model (REM) was used, which accommodates variability across studies beyond what would be expected by chance alone. Higgins’s I² was used to quantify the degree of heterogeneity present in the pooled data. Correlation coefficients were pooled if studies reported a Pearson correlation (r) using the ‘metan’ command, providing descriptive summaries as median and range. Sensitivity and specificity were pooled using the ‘metandi’ command and reported all pooled effect sizes alongside their 95% CI. Forest plots for REM meta-analysis models were created using the ‘meta forestplot’ command.

Results

After a comprehensive search across all databases, 667 studies were identified. Following the removal of duplicates, 475 studies underwent screening for eligibility based on titles and abstracts. Subsequently, 101 full-text studies were identified for assessment regarding reporting criteria and reference standards. Ultimately, 50 studies were included in the systematic review (figure 1).

Figure 1 PRISMA flow diagram. GA, gestational age; LMP, last menstrual period; PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

Quality assessment

The QUADAS-2 summary graph indicated a high risk of bias related to patient selection and reference standards. Studies using LMP as a reference standard showed the high risk of bias attributed to recall bias. However, a low risk of bias was observed across other QUADAS-2 domains (online supplemental figure 1).

Characteristics of each study are summarised in online supplemental tables 2–7.

Quality of the reference standards for GA and birth weight

A-US (n=18)

A-US was conducted by trained staff (n=10)102230 within 20 weeks of gestation (n=6)24 26 27 29 31 32 using portable US machines (n=6)1012 2729 33 and fetal biometry (n=8)10 12 22 25 27 29 34 with the Hadlock method for GA estimation (n=5).10 12 25 27 29 Quality and reliability were assessed in seven studies10 22 24 26 27 33 35 (table 1).

Table 1 Quality assessment of reference standards. (A) Antenatal ultrasound, (B) Last menstrual period, (C) Postnatal clinical scoring and (D) Newborn weighing scales

(A) Antenatal ultrasound (n=18)	
Author, year	PCS/method	Setting	Who performed A-US	When was first A-US	Portable	Fetal biometry	Methods for GA	Quality/	
reliability	
Taylor et al22 2010	BS	Medical Research Council’s station	Community midwife	Second trimester	–	CRL and BPD	–	Yes	
Wylie et al10 2013	BS	Clinics	Physician	Second trimester	Portable	BPD, femur length, AC	Hadlock	Yes	
Zahan et al23 2017	BS	Hospital	Physician	–	–	–	–	–	
Singhal et al79 2017	BS	Hospital	–	First trimester	–	–	–	–	
Unger et al33 2019	BS	Hospital	–	Second and third trimester	Portable	CRL, femur length and BPD	–	Yes	
AMANHI Study Group35 2021	BS	Clinics	Trained staff	<20 weeks	Portable	CRL, femur length and BPD	Hadlock	Yes	
Pietravalle et al80 2022	BS	Hospital	–	Third trimester	–	–	–	–	
Lee et al24 2016	BS, ESM, FL	Community	Physician	<20 weeks	Portable	CRL and BPD	Hadlock	Yes	
Stevenson et al32 2021	BS, FL	Hospital	–	<13 weeks	–	–	–	–	
Karunasekera et al31 2002	DS	Hospital	–	15–20 weeks	–	–		–	
Moore et al25 2015	DS	Clinics	Sonographers	10–23 weeks	–	CRL and BPD	Robinson and Fleming, Altman and Chitty and Hadlock	–	
Rosenberg et al67 2009	DS, BS	Hospital	–	–	–	–	–	–	
Raj et al26 2021	ESM, BS	Hospital	Physician	<13 weeks	–	–	–	Yes	
Wyk and Smith30 2016	FL	Hospital	Sonographer students	<23 weeks	–	–	–	–	
Paulsen et al34 2019	FL	Community	–	First trimester	High resolution	CRL and BPD	–	–	
Tregstina et al66 2021	FL	Hospital	–	First trimester	–	–	–	–	
Mengi et al28 2023	FL	Hospital	Midwives	First ANC visit	Portable	–	–	–	
Tikmani et al27 2024	FL	Community	Sonographers	<20 weeks	Portable	CRL, BPD, femur length	Hadlock	Yes	
(B) Last menstrual period (n=11)	
Author, year	PCS/FL method	Setting	Who took LMP	Aware of LMP	Regular cycles	Not on contraception, 3 months before conception	BF before conception	Pregnancy complications	When LMP asked	Method of assessing GA	LMP Reliable	
Zahan et al23 2017	BS	Hospital	–	Yes	–	–	–	–	–	–	Yes	
Rada et al41 2018	BS	Community	–	Yes	–	–	–	–	–	–		
Sunjoh et al38 2004	BS, DS, ESM	Hospital	–	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	–	–	–	
Feresu et al43 2002	DS, BS	Hospital	Nurse/one trained staff	Yes	Yes	Yes	–	–	20–24 weeks	–	Yes	
Thawani et al37 2013	FL	Hospital	–	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	–	First trimester	Naegele’s formula	–	
Singhal et al39 2014	FL	Hospital	–	Yes	–	–	–	–	–	Naegele’s formula	–	
Kc, et al65 2015	FL	Hospital		Yes	–	–	–	–		–	–	
Pratinidhi et al42 2017	FL	Hospital	–	Yes	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	
Tiruneh36 2020	FL	Hospital	Midwives	Yes	Yes	–	–	Yes		Naegele’s formula	–	
Dereje et al44 2023	FL	Hospital	–	Yes	Yes	–	–	–	Early trimester	Naegele’s formula	–	
Sintayehu et al40 2023	FL	Hospital	–	Yes	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	
(C) Postnatal clinical scoring (n=17)	
Author, year	Method	Description of PCS	When performed after birth	Who did test method	Methods to control bias in test method	Remarks	
PCS- (Ballard scoring)	
Mukherjee et al59 2013	FL	–	–	–	–	Just mentioned—BS used to assess GA	
Singhal et al39 2014	FL	–	–	–	–	Just mentioned—BS used to assess GA	
Gavhane et al52 2016	FL	–	1 day	–	–	Just mentioned—BS used to assess GA	
Srivastava et al46 2015	FL	*Partially described	24 hours	–	–	–	
Thi et al49 2015	FL	†Well described	24 hours	Paediatrician	–	–	
Wyk and Smith30 2016	FL	–	24 hours	–	–	Just mentioned—BS used to assess GA	
Srinivasa et al45 2017	FL	*Partially described	48 hours	–	–	–	
Roy et al69 2019	FL	–	–	–	–	Just mentioned—BS used to assess GA	
Tenali and Tenali50 2019	FL	–	1 day	–	–	Just mentioned—BS used to assess GA	
Gidi et al48 2020	FL	†Well described	–	Paediatrician	–	–	
Kapoor and Soni51 2020	FL	–	24 hours	Paediatric resident	–	–	
Dagnew et al54 2020	FL	–	–	Paediatric resident	–	Just mentioned—BS used to assess GA	
Keshwani et al68 2020	FL	–	–	–	–	Just mentioned—BS used to assess GA	
Rafat et al53 2020	FL	–	1 day	–	–	Just mentioned—BS used to assess GA	
Srinavasa et al47 2020	FL	*Partially described	48 hours	–	–	–	
PCS - (ESM)	
Marchant et al55 2010	FL	*Partially described	1 day	Clinical officers	–	–	
Nabiwemba et al56 2013	FL	*Partially described	–	Midwives	–	–	
Gidi et al48 2020	FL	†Well described	–	Paediatrician	–	–	
(D) Newborn weighing scales (n=22)	
Author, year	When BW taken	Clothing status of baby	Type of scale	Calibration	Unit	
Ahmed57 2014	<24 hours	Naked	Digital	–	kg	
Alia et al58 2011	<24 hours	–	Not sure (paediatric weighing machine)	–	g	
Gavhane et al52 2016	<24 hours	–	Digital	–	kg	
Mukherjee et al59 2013	<24 hours	–	Digital	–	kg	
Mullany et al60 2007	<24 hours	–	Digital	Calibrated with bottle of 1000 gm	g	
Pratinidhi et al42 2017	<24 hours	Naked	Digital	–	kg	
Rustagi et al61 2012	<24 hours	Minimal clothing	Digital	–	g	
Srinivasa et al45 2017	<48 hours	Naked	Not sure (paediatric weighing machine)	–	Kg	
Srivastava et al46 2015	<24 hours	Naked	Digital	–	g	
Thi et al49 2015	<24 hours	–	Digital	Calibrated	g	
Kc et al65	<24 hours	–	Manual	Calibrated	g	
Tregstina et al66 2021	<48 hours	–	Digital	–	g	
Gidi et al48 2020	<24 hours	–	Digital	Calibrated	g	
Hadush et al62 2017	<24 hours	Naked	Digital	Calibrated with bottle of 1000 gm	g	
Marchant et al55 2010	–	–	Digital	Calibrated with bottle of 1000 gm	g	
Modibbo and Taura63 2013	<24 hours	–	Digital	–	–	
Nabiwemba et al56 2013	<24 hours	–	Digital	Calibrated with bottle of 1000 g	g	
Otupiri et al64 2014	<24 hours	Naked	Digital	Calibrated with bottle of 1000 g	kg	
Paulsen et al34 2019	<24 hours	Naked	Digital	Calibrated		
Sintayehu et al40 2023	<24 hours	–	Digital	Calibrated	g	
Mengi et al28 2023	<72 hours	–	Digital	Calibrated	kg	
(–) mean information is not available.

* Partially described, means only a few clinical signs were mentioned.

† Well described, mean partially described plus scoring were mentioned.

ACabdominal circumferenceANCantenatal careA-USantenatal ultrasoundBFbreast feedingBPDbiparietal diameterBSBallard ScoreCRLcrown-rump lengthDSDubowitz ScoreESMEregie scoring modelFLfoot lengthGAgestational ageLMPlast menstrual periodPCSpostnatal clinical scoring

LMP (n=11)

All 11 studies included women who were aware of their LMP. Criteria for inclusion were women aware of their LMP (n=11),233644 regular menstrual cycles (n=5),363843 44 no contraception use in the 3 months prior to conception (n=3),37 38 43 no breast feeding after conception (n=2)37 38 and the absence of pregnancy complications (n-2).36 38 LMP data were collected by midwives or nurses (n=2)36 43 in the early trimester (n=2),43 44 with GA assessed through Naegele’s formula (n=4)36 37 39 44 and reliability assessed in two studies23 43 (table 1).

PCS (n=17)

15 studies validated FL against the Ballard Score (BS) as a reference standard, and three studies used the ESM as a reference standard. Of 15 studies, 5 studies described the procedures (partially described: only clinical signs, n=34547; well described: clinical signs and scoring, n=248 49). BS was performed within 24 hours/1 day after birth (n=7)3046 4953 by paediatricians (n=4).48 49 51 54 Three studies described the ESM, which was conducted on day 1 (n=1)55 by paediatricians (n=2)48 55 and midwives (n=1)56 (table 1).

Newborn weighing scales (n=22)

Newborns were measured within 24 hours of birth (n=17),3440 42 48 49 52 5665 either naked or with minimal clothing (n=8)34 42 45 46 57 61 62 64 using digital (n=18)2834 40 42 46 48 49 52 5557 59 calibrated weighing scales (n=11),28 34 40 48 49 55 56 60 62 64 65 with weights recorded in grams (n=12).4043 46 48 49 55 58 6062 65 66 FL measurements were taken by averaging two or three readings recorded (n=6)28 40 48 49 56 64 (table 1).

Diagnostic accuracy of PCS methods in assessing the GA

Ballard scoring with A-US as a reference standard (n=10)

In seven studies,10 24 26 32 33 35 67 BS resulted in a pooled mean difference of 0.65 weeks (95% CI −0.23 to 1.54, p<0.001) and a pooled SD of 1.6 weeks. Four out of 10 studies reported a correlation coefficient ranging from 0.31 to 0.94.12 26 32 33 Additionally, four studies12 32 33 35 reported a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 67.0% (95% CI 22.0% to 94.0%) and 80.0% (95% CI 73.0% to 85.0%), respectively, for identifying preterm births (table 2 and online supplemental figures 2–4).

Table 2 Validity of postnatal clinical scoring in assessing gestational age keeping antenatal ultrasound and last menstrual period as a reference standard

First author	Country	Clinical scoring	Study design	Sample size	Preterm (%)	Mean difference	Bland Altman (LOA)	Correlation	Sensitivity, %(95% CI)	Specificity, %(95% CI)	
Antenatal ultrasound as reference standard	
Rosenberg et al67 2009	Bangladesh	BS	Cohort study	355	–	2.9±7.8	(–4.9 to 10.6)				
Taylor et al22 2010	Gambia	BS	Cohort study	80	25.0	–	–	0.70			
Wylie et al10 2013	Malawi	BS	Cohort study	178	4.6	0.8±2.2	(–3.5 to 5.1)				
Lee et al24 2016	Bangladesh	BS	Cohort study	1066	11.4	−0.4±2.4	(–4.7 to 4.0)		15.0(12.8 to 17.1)	87.0(85.0 to 89.0)	
Zahan et al23 2017	Bangladesh	BS	Cross-sectional study	129	–	–	–	0.94			
Unger et al33 2019	*Multicountry study (Africa)	BS	Cohort study	1630	15.0	0.80	(–3.5 to 5.1)	0.31	42.0(39.6 to 44.4)	77.0(75.0 to 79.0)	
Raj et al26 2021	India	BS	Cross-sectional study	1114	8.8	0.65	(–0.9 to 2.3)				
Stevenson et al32 2021	South Africa	BS	Prospective study	106	78.3	−0.14	(–2.9 to 2.7)	0.93	97.6(94.7 to 100)	73.9(65.5 to 82.3)	
AMANHI Study Group35 2021	†Multicountry study (Asia & Africa)	BS	Cohort study	7428	7.9	−1.96	(–15.3 to 33.6)		80.0(79.1 to 80.9)	80.0(79.1 to 80.1)	
Pietravalle et al80 2022	Tanzania	BS	Retrospective	70	–	1.2	(–1.8 to 4.2)	–	–	–	
Karunsekera et al31 2002	Sri Lanka	DS	Cross-sectional study	200	–	2.2±1.4	–	–	–	–	
Rosenberg et al67 2009	Bangladesh	DS	Cohort study	355	–	−3.6±3.6	(–11.0 to 3.3)	0.91			
Moore et al25 2015	Thailand	DS	Longitudinal cohort	250	28.0	2.6±1.3	(0.5 to 4.6)	–	61.0(54.9 to 76.0)	99.0(97.7 to 100)	
Lee et al24 2016	Bangladesh	ESM	Study nested within-cluster randomised trial	1066	11.4	−2.0±1.6	(–5.4 to 1.5)	–	75.0(72.4 to 77.6)	58.0(55.0 to 60.9)	
Raj et al26 2021	India	ESM	Cross-sectional study	1114	8.8	0.3±0.9	(–1.4 to 2.1)	–			
Last menstrual period as reference standard	
Feresu et al43 2002	Zimbabwe	BS	Cross-sectional study	364	23.9	–	–	0.80	–	–	
Sunjoh et al38 2004	Cameroon	BS	Cross-sectional study	358	31.8	0.36±1.5	(–2.6 to 3.3)	0.93	–	–	
Zahan et al23 2017	Bangladesh	BS	Cross-sectional study	129	–	–	–	0.94	–	–	
Rada et al41 2018	‡Multi-country study (Africa)	BS	Cohort study	4390	–	−1.24±6.3	(–13.6 to 11.1)	–	–	–	
Feresu et al43 2002	Zimbabwe	DS	Not available	364	23.9		–	0.81	–	–	
Sunjoh et al38 2004	Cameroon	DS	Cross-sectional study	358	31.8	0.50±1.3	–	0.94	–	–	
Sunjoh et al38 2004	Cameroon	ESM	Cross-sectional study	358	31.8	0.26±1.4	–	0.93	–	–	
* Burkina Faso, Ghana, Malawi and Zambia.

† Bangladesh, Ghana, Pakistan, Tanzania, and Zambia.

‡ Benin, Gabon, Mozambique, and Tanzania.

BSBallard ScoreDSDubowitz ScoreESMEregie scoring modelLOAlimits of agreement

Ballard scoring with LMP as a reference standard (n=4)

BS resulted in a pooled mean difference of −0.35 weeks (95% CI −0.75 to 0.05, p=0.04) and a pooled SD of 1.5 weeks.38 41 67 Three studies reported a correlation coefficient of 0.94.23 None reported sensitivity and specificity (table 2).

Dubowitz scoring with A-US as a reference standard (n=3)

DS resulted in a pooled mean difference of 0.68 weeks (95% CI 0.52 to 0.84, p=0.35) and a pooled SD of 1.4 weeks.25 67 One out of two studies reported a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.91. One study reported a sensitivity of 61.0% (95% CI 54.9% to 76.0%) and a specificity of 99.0% (95% CI 97.7% to 100%) for identifying preterm birth neonates.25 (table 2)

Dubowitz scoring with LMP as a reference standard, (n=2)

DS resulted in a pooled mean difference of 0.67 weeks (95% CI 0.45 to 0.89, p=0.52) and a pooled SD of 1.2 weeks.31 38 Two studies reported the Pearson correlation coefficient ranged from 0.81 to 0.94.38 43 None of the studies reported sensitivity and specificity. (table 2)

ESM with A-US as a reference standard (n=2)

ESM resulted in a pooled mean difference of −0.44 weeks (95% CI −0.51 to −0.37, p<0.001) and a pooled SD of 1.4 weeks.24 26 One study reported a sensitivity of 75.0% (95% CI 72.4% to 77.6%) and specificity of 58.0% (95% CI 55.0% to 60.9%) of ESM for identifying preterm birth neonates.24 (table 2)

Eregie scoring with the LMP as a reference standard (n=1)

One study reported Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.93 and a mean difference of 0.26±1.38 weeks.38 (table 2)

Diagnostic accuracy of FL for GA assessment

The FL with A-US as a reference standard (n=7)

Three studies reported positive correlations between FL and GA ranging from 0.37 to 0.89 with a pooled correlation coefficient of 0.72 (95% CI 0.38 to 1.05).30 34 40 44 66 Two studies used an FL cut-off of <7.5 cm to detect preterm birth with FL measurements <7.5 cm (n=2) showed pooled sensitivity of 76.2 (95% CI 70.2 to 81.5) and pooled specificity of 36.6 (95% CI 32.7 to 40.7) for identifying preterm birth compared with A-US.24 32 table 3

Table 3 Comparison of foot length for estimating gestational age with A-US, LMP and postnatal clinical scoring (Ballard and Eregie score model) as reference standards

Study	Country	Study design	Sample size	Preterm (%)	Correlation coefficient	FL Cut-offs(cm)	Sensitivity, %(95% CI)	Specificity, %(95% CI)	
A-US as the reference standards	
Lee et al24 2016	Bangladesh	Cross-sectional study	710	8.3	–	<7.5	64.0(60.5 to 67.5)	35.0(31.5 to 38.5)	
Wyk and Smith30 2016	South Africa	Not specified	200	–	0.89	–	–	–	
Paulsen et al34 2019	Tanzania	Observational study	376	4.5	0.37	≤7.7	94.0(71.0 to 100)	64.0(59.0 to 69.0)	
Stevenson et al32 2021	South Africa	Observational study	106	78.3	–	<7.5	98.9(93.4 to 100)	60.9(38.5 to 80.3)	
Tergestina et al66 2021	India	Cross-sectional study	520	–	0.89	–	–	–	
Mengi et al28 2023	Papua New Guinea	Prospective study	342	7.3	–	<7.7	88.0(70.0 to 95.8)	61.8(56.5 to 67.0)	
Tikmani et al27 2024	Pakistan	Cross-sectional study	336	22.3	–	<7.6	90.8(86.6 to 97.6)	96.0(88.8 to 99.2)	
LMP as the reference standards	
Thawani et al37 2013	India	Cross-sectional study	1000	37.3	0.51	–	–	–	
Singhal et al39 2014	India	Observational study	1000	36.5	0.93	7.0	94.8(93.4 to 96.2)	94.3(93.0 to 95.7)	
Kc et al65 2015	Nepal	Cross-sectional study	811	6.7	–	7.5	32.7(29.5 to 35.9)	83.8(81.3 to 86.3)	
Pratinidhi et al42 2017	India	Not specified	645	6.7	0.63	<6.8	93.0(80.9 to 98.5)	86.7(83.7 to 89.3)	
Tiruneh36 2020	Ethiopia	Cross-sectional study	424	15.1	0.14	–	–	–	
Sintayehu et al40 2023	Ethiopia	Cross-sectional study	381	26.7	0.48	<7.1	77.0(75.2 to 80.4)	90.7(88.7 to 92.4)	
Dereje et al44 2023	Ethiopia	Cross-sectional study	420	16.4	0.46	–	–	–	
Postnatal clinical scoring (Ballard scoring)	
Mukherjee et al59 2013	India	Cross-sectional study	351	48.1	0.89	7.75	92.3	86.3	
Singhal et al39 2014	India	Observational study	1000	15.4	–	7.0	94.8	94.3	
Gavhane et al52 2016	India	Observational study	800	15.5	0.81	–	–	–	
Srivastava et al46 2015	India	Not specified	254	59.8	0.96	–	–	–	
Thi et al49 2015	Vietnam	Observational study	485	49.0	–	7.3	80.0(74.0 to 85.0)	81(76.0 to 86.0)	
Wyk and Smith30 2016	South Africa	Not specified	200	–	0.88	–	–	–	
Srinivasa et al45 2017	India	Cross-sectional study	500	16.8	0.86	7.4	98.8(93.5 to 100)	79.1(74.9 to 82.9)	
Roy et al69 2019	India	Cross-sectional study	320	17.5	–	7.35	80.0	78.0	
Tenali and Tenali50 2019	India	Prospective study	300	28.0	0.79	–	–	–	
Gidi et al48 2020	Ethiopia	Cross-sectional study	1389	10.2	–	7.5	81.7(74.3 to 87.7)	77 .0(74.6 to 79.3)	
Kapoor and Soni51	India	Cross-sectional study	514	28.4	0.80	6.83	94.6	42	
Dagnew et al54 2020	Ethiopia	Cross-sectional study	–	33.2	0.87	7.35	98.5(92.1 to 99.7)	96.3(91.7 to 98.4)	
Keshwani and Suroshe68 2020	India	Cross-sectional study	350	–	0.78	–	–	–	
Rafat et al53 2020	Egypt	Prospective study	1000	–	0.69	–	–	–	
Srinavasa et al47 2020	India	Cross-sectional study	173	29.5	0.91	–	–	–	
Postnatal clinical scoring - (Eregie scoring model)	
Marchant et al55 2010	Tanzania	Cross-sectional study	529	9.0	–	<8.0	93.0(82.0 to 99.0)	58.0(53.0 to 62.0)	
Nabiwemba et al56 2013	Uganda	Cross-sectional study	711	4.0	0.76	7.5	85.7	90.4	
Gidi et al48 2020	Ethiopia	Cross-sectional study	1389	10.2	–	≤7.4	80.5(69.9 to 88.7)	91.4(89.7 to 92.8)	
A-USantenatal ultrasoundLMPlast menstrual period

The FL with the LMP as a reference standard (n=7)

Six studies reported positive correlations between FL and GA ranging from 0.14 to 0.93 with a pooled correlation coefficient of 0.56 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.88).36 37 39 42 One study reported FL cut-off of <7.5 cm to identify preterm birth, with sensitivity of 32.7% and specificity of 83.8%. (table 3)

The FL with PCS as reference standard (n=17)

BS (n=15),3940 4547 49 ESM (n=2)55 56 and both BS and ESM (n=1)48 were used as reference standards. 11 studies reported correlations ranging from 0.69 to 0.96.304547 50 One study reported FL cut-off of <7.5 cm to identify preterm birth using BS as reference standard, has sensitivity of 81.7% and specificity of 77%48 and another study used ESM as reference standard reported sensitivity of 85.7% and specificity of 90.4% for identification of preterm.56 (table 3)

Diagnostic accuracy of FL in assessing the LBW

Of 22 studies that reported diagnostic accuracy of FL for identification of LBW, 15 studies showed a correlation ranging from 0.21 to 0.97 between FL and birth weight with a pooled correlation coefficient of 0.71 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.82).3440 45 46 49 52 56 58 6164 66 70 Pooled sensitivity and specificity for identifying LBW at an FL cut-off of ≤7.4 cm (n=4) were 72.1 (95% CI 68.3 to 75.7) and 84.9 (95% CI 83.2 to 86.5), respectively. At an FL cut-off of ≤7.6 cm (n-4), the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 78.6 (95% CI 73.7 to 83.6) and 65.7 (95% CI 63.3 to 68.1), respectively.28 34 48 61 (table 4)

Table 4 Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of foot length in predicting low birth weight (LBW)

First author and year	Country	Study design	Sample size	LBW (%)	Correlation	Foot length cut-offs (cm)	Sensitivity, % (95% CI)	Specificity, % (95% CI)	
Mullany60 2007	Nepal	Not specified	1640	28.6	–	7.5	97.4(96.6 to 98.2)	32.7(30.4 to 35.0)	
Marchant55 2010	Tanzania	Cross-sectional study	529	15.0	–	<8.0	87.0(79.0 to 94.0)	60.0(55.0 to 64.0)	
Alia58 2011	Bangladesh	Cross-sectional study	100	52.0	0.77	–	–	–	
Rustagi61 2012	India	Prospective observational study	283	–	0.21	≤7.7	58.0(52.2 to 63.8)	83.0(78.6 to 87.4)	
Mukherjee59 2013	India	Cross-sectional study	351	51.8	0.95	<7.85	100	95.3(93.1 to 97.5)	
Nabiwemba56 2013	Uganda	Cross-sectional study	706	12.0	0.76	<7.9	94.1(86.8 to 98.1)	82.6(79.8 to 86.1)	
Modibbo63 2013	Nigeria	Cross-sectional study	551	–	0.66	–	–	–	
Otupiri64 2014	Ghana	Cross-sectional study	973	21.7	0.53	≤7.4	–	–	
Ahmed57 2014	India	–	1028	–	0.51	7.8	90.9(89.1 to 92.7)	33.3(30.4 to 36.2)	
Thi49 2015	Vietnam	Prospective observational study	485	51.0	–	≤7.4	85.0(70.0 to 89.0)	86.0(81.0 to 90.0)	
Kc65 2015	Nepal	Cross-sectional study	811	3.7	–	7.5	82.2(79.6 to 84.8)	85.2(82.8 to 87.6)	
Srivastava46 2015	India	–	254	–	0.97	–	–	–	
Gavhane52 2016	India	Prospective observational study	800	25.5	0.49	–	–	–	
Hadush62 2017	Ethiopia	Cross-sectional study	422	27.0	0.75	7.35	72.8(68.6 to 77.0)	91.6(89.0 to 94.2)	
Srinivasa45 2017	India	Cross-sectional study	500	–	0.90	<7.4	97.0(95.5 to 98.5)	87.1(84.2 to 90.0)	
Pratinidhi42 2017	India	–	645	–	0.75	–	–	–	
Paulsen34 2019	Tanzania	Prospective observational study	376	10.5	0.66	≤7.7	74.0(61.0 to 83.0)	67.0(61.0 to 72.0)	
Gidi48 2020	Ethiopia	Cross-sectional study	1486	13.7	–	≤7.7	84.2(78.4 to 88.9)	73.9(71.3 to 6.4)	
Tregstina66 2021	India	Cross-sectional study	520	–	0.97	–	–	–	
Mengi28 2023	Papua New Guinea	Prospective study	342	7.3	–	<7.7	84.7(74.7 to 91.2)	69.6(63.9 to 4.8)	
Sintayehu40 2023	Ethiopia	Cross-sectional study	381	26.7	0.53	<6.9	94.8(93.2 to 96.1)	80.5(77.9 to 82.9)	

Discussion

Existing reviews on PCS and FL as methods for GA and birthweight assessment within the context of LMICs have been updated. PCS methods such as BS and DS tend to overestimate GA while ESM underestimates it. Additionally, studies investigating the diagnostic accuracy of FL as a proxy for prematurity or LBW showed varying degrees of sensitivity and specificity; however, due to high heterogeneity, one should interpret these results with caution (online supplemental figures 2–4). The significant methodological differences, especially in the standardisation of reference standards like A-US and LMP, largely account for the observed variation and equivocal findings in existing studies on PCS methods and FL measurements.

Several contextual factors contribute to this variability. Many studies relied on secondary data lacking standardised data collection methods, leading to inconsistent findings. Methodological differences included anatomical landmarks and measurement tools for FL, with studies using landmarks such as heel to hallux or longest toe and tools ranging from plastic rulers to callipers to flexible tapes. Various cut-offs for FL as a proxy for prematurity (7.1–7.9 cm) and LBW (<6.9 to <7.9 cm) also led to differences in sensitivity and specificity.28 34 71 This variation in cut-offs may be attributed to the higher frequency of premature newborns in some studies.40 56 Furthermore, most studies evaluating FL and PCS for GA were conducted in hospital settings. Hospital settings, with higher incidences of prematurity, asphyxia, sepsis, growth retardation and maternal complications such as pre-eclampsia/eclampsia, gestational diabetes and anaemia, further added to this variability.72 73 Moreover, differences in healthcare settings, staff training and access to care between urban hospitals and rural areas in LMICs also contributed to this heterogeneity. Hospital-based studies often involve trained medical personnel, whereas rural settings may lack such resources, impacting the accuracy and generalisability of PCS and FL measurements.

South Asia exhibits a high prevalence of premature and LBW neonates, with variations in the diagnostic accuracy and optimal cut-offs for FL measurements when compared with other regions such as sub-Saharan Africa. Studies conducted in Asia show FL cut-offs ranging from <6.842 to <7.75 cm59 for identifying preterm, whereas studies from Africa have cut-offs ranging from <7.140 to <8 cm74 for the same purpose. Similarly, for identifying LBW neonates, Asian studies report FL cut-offs ranging from <7.445 49 to <8.0 cm59 while African studies show cut-offs ranging from <6.940 to <8.0 cm.55 These differences arise due to distinct population characteristics and genetic profiles, necessitating different cut-offs.75 76 This regional variability highlights the inherent complexity of applying a one-size-fits-all approach to neonatal assessments.77 Universal application without adjustments can lead to inaccurate assessments, potentially compromising the quality of care and intervention strategies. Therefore, while these diagnostic tools are valuable, their use must be tailored to regional contexts to achieve precise and reliable outcomes.78

This systematic review and meta-analysis has several limitations. First, relying on binary outcomes. Using categorical outcomes like LBW versus not LBW or preterm versus not preterm in LMICs offers advantages. These endpoints simplify data collection and interpretation, making it more feasible in resource-limited settings. Different cut-offs for continuous variables like FL introduce variability, complicating comparisons. Categorical outcomes provide clear, standardised criteria that facilitate decision-making and policy implementation and second, pooling individual-level data for continuous analysis was challenging due to logistical constraints, variations in data quality and limited access to advanced statistical tools, making categorical outcomes a more straightforward, actionable and accessible approach to addressing public health concerns in LMICs.

A deviation from the PROSPERO protocol in the manuscript regarding the inclusion of quality assessment of reference standards is acknowledged, as these factors contribute to heterogeneity across the studies. However, the overall methodology remains consistent with the PROSPERO protocol.

This study highlights the need for standardised measurement protocols and improved data collection methods. By carefully examining the quality of evidence related to reference standards, we recommend implementing uniform protocols for PCS and FL measurements across LMICs to ensure consistency and reliability. Additionally, it is crucial to invest in robust data collection and management systems to enhance the accuracy and applicability of GA and birthweight assessments. Furthermore, the policies should prioritise skill development, quality assurance and supportive supervision for healthcare providers conducting GA and birthweight assessments. These measures will ultimately lead to better neonatal health outcomes.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this review reveals significant variability and methodological inconsistencies in using PCS methods and FL measurements for estimating GA and LBW in LMICs. The observed high heterogeneity across studies suggests a cautious interpretation of the results and calls for future research to be focused on validating and adapting these tools to better suit the specific contexts of diverse LMIC settings.

supplementary material

10.1136/bmjpo-2024-002717 online supplemental file 1

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge Khawaja Mustafa (KM), the librarian of Aga Khan University, who helped us in developing search strategies. I dedicate this manuscript to my late father Professor Pirbhulal Tikmani and my Late mother Asha Devi (Revti).

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information.

Review Process File
30 08 2024

Funding: The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Patient consent for publication: Not applicable.

Patient and public involvement: Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.
==== Refs
References

1 Ohuma EO Moller A-B Bradley E et al National, regional, and global estimates of preterm birth in 2020, with trends from 2010: a systematic analysis Lancet 2023 402 1261 71 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00878-4 37805217
2 Okwaraji YB Krasevec J Bradley E et al National, regional, and global estimates of low birthweight in 2020, with trends from 2000: a systematic analysis Lancet 2024 403 1071 80 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01198-4 38430921
3 Perin J Mulick A Yeung D et al Global, regional, and national causes of under-5 mortality in 2000-19: an updated systematic analysis with implications for the Sustainable Development Goals Lancet Child Adolesc Health 2022 6 106 15 10.1016/S2352-4642(21)00311-4 34800370
4 Jana A Saha UR Reshmi RS et al Relationship between low birth weight and infant mortality: evidence from National Family Health Survey 2019-21, India Arch Public Health 2023 81 28 10.1186/s13690-023-01037-y 36803539
5 Olack B Santos N Inziani M et al Causes of preterm and low birth weight neonatal mortality in a rural community in Kenya: evidence from verbal and social autopsy BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2021 21 536 10.1186/s12884-021-04012-z 34325651
6 Hoffman CS Messer LC Mendola P et al Comparison of gestational age at birth based on last menstrual period and ultrasound during the first trimester Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2008 22 587 96 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2008.00965.x 19000297
7 Weinstein JR Thompson LM Díaz Artiga A et al Determining gestational age and preterm birth in rural Guatemala: A comparison of methods PLoS ONE 2018 13 e0193666 10.1371/journal.pone.0193666 29554145
8 Ginsburg AS Liddy Z Khazaneh PT et al A survey of barriers and facilitators to ultrasound use in low- and middle-income countries Sci Rep 2023 13 3322 10.1038/s41598-023-30454-w 36849625
9 Acup W Opollo MS Akullo BN et al Factors associated with first antenatal care (ANC) attendance within 12 weeks of pregnancy among women in Lira City, Northern Uganda: a facility-based cross-sectional study BMJ Open 2023 13 e071165 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-071165
10 Wylie BJ Kalilani-Phiri L Madanitsa M et al Gestational age assessment in malaria pregnancy cohorts: a prospective ultrasound demonstration project in Malawi Malar J 2013 12 183 10.1186/1475-2875-12-183 23734718
11 Opara P Gestational age assessment in the newborn-a review Int J Pediatr Neonatol 2009 12 9
12 Lee AC Panchal P Folger L et al Diagnostic Accuracy of Neonatal Assessment for Gestational Age Determination: A Systematic Review Pediatrics 2017 140 e20171423 10.1542/peds.2017-1423 29150458
13 Wilson LA Murphy MS Ducharme R et al Postnatal gestational age estimation via newborn screening analysis: application and potential Expert Rev Proteomics 2019 16 727 31 10.1080/14789450.2019.1654863 31422714
14 Baqui A Ahmed P Dasgupta SK et al Development and validation of a simplified algorithm for neonatal gestational age assessment – protocol for the Alliance for Maternal Newborn Health Improvement (AMANHI) prospective cohort study J Glob Health 2017 7 10.7189/jogh.07.021201
15 Folger LV Panchal P Eglovitch M et al Diagnostic accuracy of neonatal foot length to identify preterm and low birthweight infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis BMJ Glob Health 2020 5 e002976 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-002976
16 World Health Organization WHO technical consultation on newborn health indicators: every newborn action plan metrics, ferney voltaire, France, 3-5 December 2014 2015
17 WHO Recommended definition, terminology and format for statistical tables related to the perinatal period Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1997 56 247 53 10.3109/00016347709162009
18 World Health Organization International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems: alphabetical index 2004
19 Carkeet A Goh YT Confidence and coverage for Bland-Altman limits of agreement and their approximate confidence intervals Stat Methods Med Res 2018 27 1559 74 10.1177/0962280216665419 27587594
20 Dunnigan K Confidence Interval Calculation for Binomial Proportions Indianapolis, IN MWSUG Conference 2008
21 Rosner B Fundamentals of biostatistics Rosner B, ed Bostan MA Cengage learning 2016
22 Taylor RAM Denison FC Beyai S et al The external Ballard examination does not accurately assess the gestational age of infants born at home in a rural community of The Gambia Ann Trop Paediatr 2010 30 197 204 10.1179/146532810X12786388978526 20828452
23 Zahan GA Mosleh T Akter K et al Validity of New Ballard Score Untill 7th Day of Postnatal Life In Preterm Neonate Bangladesh J Child Health 2017 41 24 7 10.3329/bjch.v41i1.33631
24 Lee AC Mullany LC Ladhani K et al Validity of Newborn Clinical Assessment to Determine Gestational Age in Bangladesh Pediatrics 2016 138 e20153303 10.1542/peds.2015-3303 27313070
25 Moore KA Simpson JA Thomas KH et al Estimating Gestational Age in Late Presenters to Antenatal Care in a Resource-Limited Setting on the Thai-Myanmar Border PLoS One 2015 10 e0131025 10.1371/journal.pone.0131025 26114295
26 Raj M Kadirvel K Anandaraj L et al Comparison of Expanded New Ballard, Eregie and Parkin Scores in Predicting Gestational Age in Newborns J Trop Pediatr 2021 67 fmab080 10.1093/tropej/fmab080 34518885
27 Tikmani SS Brown N Inayat A et al Diagnostic accuracy of foot length measurement for identification of preterm newborn in rural Sindh, Pakistan BMJ Paediatr Open 2024 8 e002316 10.1136/bmjpo-2023-002316
28 Mengi A Vallely LM Laman M et al The use of newborn foot length to identify low birth weight and preterm babies in Papua New Guinea: A diagnostic accuracy study PLOS Glob Public Health 2023 3 e0001924 10.1371/journal.pgph.0001924 37343037
29 Deb S Mohammed MS Dhingra U et al Performance of late pregnancy biometry for gestational age dating in low-income and middle-income countries: a prospective, multicountry, population-based cohort study from the WHO Alliance for Maternal and Newborn Health Improvement (AMANHI) Study Group Lancet Glob Health 2020 8 e545 54 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30034-6 32199122
30 Wyk LV Smith J Postnatal Foot Length to Determine Gestational Age: A Pilot Study J Trop Pediatr 2016 62 144 51 10.1093/tropej/fmv093 26758249
31 Karunasekera KAW Sirisena J Jayasinghe JACT et al How accurate is the postnatal estimation of gestational age? J Trop Pediatr 2002 48 270 2 10.1093/tropej/48.5.270 12405168
32 Stevenson A Joolay Y Levetan C et al A Comparison of the Accuracy of Various Methods of Postnatal Gestational Age Estimation; Including Ballard Score, Foot Length, Vascularity of the Anterior Lens, Last Menstrual Period and Also A Clinician’s Non-Structured Assessment J Trop Pediatr 2021 67 fmaa113 10.1093/tropej/fmaa113 33693940
33 Unger H Thriemer K Ley B et al The assessment of gestational age: a comparison of different methods from a malaria pregnancy cohort in sub-Saharan Africa BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2019 19 12 10.1186/s12884-018-2128-z 30621604
34 Paulsen CB Nielsen BB Msemo OA et al Anthropometric measurements can identify small for gestational age newborns: a cohort study in rural Tanzania BMC Pediatr 2019 19 120 10.1186/s12887-019-1500-0 31014291
35 Alliance for Maternal and Newborn Health Improvement (AMANHI) Gestational Age Study Group Alliance for Maternal and Newborn Health Improvement (AMANHI) GA Study Group Simplified models to assess newborn gestational age in low-middle income countries: findings from a multicountry, prospective cohort study BMJ Glob Health 2021 6 e005688 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005688
36 Tiruneh C Estimation of Gestational Age Using Neonatal Anatomical Anthropometric Parameters in Dessie Referral Hospital, Northeast Ethiopia Risk Manag Healthc Policy 2020 13 3021 9 10.2147/RMHP.S280682 33376426
37 Thawani R Dewan P Faridi MMA et al Estimation of gestational age, using neonatal anthropometry: a cross-sectional study in India J Health Popul Nutr 2013 31 523 30 10.3329/jhpn.v31i4.20051 24592594
38 Sunjoh F Njamnshi AK Tietche F et al Assessment of gestational age in the Cameroonian newborn infant: a comparison of four scoring methods J Trop Pediatr 2004 50 285 91 10.1093/tropej/50.5.285 15510760
39 Singhal S Tomar A Masand R et al A SIMPLE TOOL FOR ASSESSMENT OF GESTATIONAL AGE IN NEWBORNS USING FOOT LENGTH JEMDS 2014 3 6424 9 10.14260/jemds/2014/2758
40 Sintayehu E Sintayehu Y Oumer A et al Identification of anthropometric surrogate measurements and their cut-off points for the detection of low birth weight and premature newborn babies using ROC Analysis J Nutr Sci 2023 12 e32 10.1017/jns.2023.20 37008417
41 Rada S Gamper J González R et al Concordance of three alternative gestational age assessments for pregnant women from four African countries: A secondary analysis of the MIPPAD trial PLoS ONE 2018 13 e0199243 10.1371/journal.pone.0199243 30080869
42 Pratinidhi AK Bagade AC Kakade SV et al Action-oriented colour-coded foot length calliper for primary healthcare workers as a proxy for birth weight & gestational period Indian J Med Res 2017 145 347 52 10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_36_14 28749397
43 Feresu SA Gillespie BW Sowers MF et al Improving the assessment of gestational age in a Zimbabwean population Intl J Gynecol Obstet 2002 78 7 18 10.1016/S0020-7292(02)00094-2
44 Dereje I Awol M Getaye A et al Estimating gestational age using the anthropometric measurements of newborns in North Shewa Zone public hospitals, Oromia, Ethiopia Front Pediatr 2023 11 1265036 10.3389/fped.2023.1265036 38125819
45 Srinivasa S Manasa G Madhu G Foot length of newborn: Its correlation with gestational age and various anthropometric parameters Curr Pediatr Res 2017
46 Srivastava A Sharma U Kumar S To study correlation of foot length and gestational age of new born by new Ballard score Int J Res Med Sci 2015 3 3119 22 10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20151147
47 S. S C. A. AA Kalla PK Postnatal foot length of newborn: its correlation with gestational maturity Int J Contemp Pediatr 2020 7 1614 10.18203/2349-3291.ijcp20202626
48 Gidi NW Berhane M Girma T et al Anthropometric measures that identify premature and low birth weight newborns in Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study with community follow-up Arch Dis Child 2020 105 326 31 10.1136/archdischild-2019-317490 31676553
49 Thi HN Khanh DKT Thu HLT et al Foot Length, Chest Circumference, and Mid Upper Arm Circumference Are Good Predictors of Low Birth Weight and Prematurity in Ethnic Minority Newborns in Vietnam: A Hospital-Based Observational Study PLoS One 2015 10 e0142420 10.1371/journal.pone.0142420 26555356
50 Tenali ASL Tenali RK Study of foot length as an alternate measurement for assessment of gestational maturity in neonates Int J Contemp Pediatr 2019 6 477 10.18203/2349-3291.ijcp20190684
51 Kapoor A Soni TN Neonatal Foot Length as Surrogate Marker for Prematurity: A Hospital Based Cross-Sectional Study in Central India J Nepal Paedtr Soc 2020 40 217 23 10.3126/jnps.v40i3.29228
52 Gavhane S Kale A Golawankar A et al Correlation of foot length and gestational maturity in neonates Int J Contemp Pediatr 2016 3 705 8 10.18203/2349-3291.ijcp20162212
53 RK R FK N FA M Correlation of Foot Length and Hand Length and Other Anthropometric Measurments with Gestional Age Assisted by New Ballard Score Al Azhar J Pediatr 2020 23 964 80
54 Dagnew N Tazebew A Ayinalem A et al Measuring newborn foot length to estimate gestational age in a high risk Northwest Ethiopian population PLoS One 2020 15 e0238169 10.1371/journal.pone.0238169 32853237
55 Marchant T Jaribu J Penfold S et al Measuring newborn foot length to identify small babies in need of extra care: a cross sectional hospital based study with community follow-up in Tanzania BMC Public Health 2010 10 1 9 10.1186/1471-2458-10-624 20043862
56 Nabiwemba E Marchant T Namazzi G et al Identifying high-risk babies born in the community using foot length measurement at birth in Uganda Child Care Health Dev 2013 39 20 6 10.1111/j.1365-2214.2012.01383.x 22680250
57 Ahmed AA Estimation of sex from the lower limb measurements of Sudanese adults Forensic Sci Int 2013 229 169 10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.04.005
58 Alia RA Mannan M Fatema K et al Correlation of birth weight with other anthropometric variables in detection of low birth weight (LBW) babies J Dhaka Natl Med Coll Hosp 2011 17 29 32 10.3329/jdnmch.v17i1.12189
59 Mukherjee S Roy P Mitra S et al Measuring new born foot length to identify small babies in need of extra care: a cross-sectional hospital based study Iran J Pediatr 2013 23 508 12 24800008
60 Mullany LC Darmstadt GL Khatry SK et al Relationship between the surrogate anthropometric measures, foot length and chest circumference and birth weight among newborns of Sarlahi, Nepal Eur J Clin Nutr 2007 61 40 6 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602504 16885929
61 Rustagi N Prasuna JG Taneja DK Anthropometric surrogates for screening of low birth weight newborns: a community-based study Asia Pac J Public Health 2012 24 343 51 10.1177/1010539510384717 21247978
62 Hadush MY Berhe AH Medhanyie AA Foot length, chest and head circumference measurements in detection of Low birth weight neonates in Mekelle, Ethiopia: a hospital based cross sectional study BMC Pediatr 2017 17 111 10.1186/s12887-017-0866-0 28431500
63 Modibbo M Taura M Regression Equations for Birth Weight Estimation using Anthropometric Measurements of Hand and Foot of Hausa new Born Babies in Kano-Nigeria Bayero J Pure App Sci 2013 6 186 10.4314/bajopas.v6i1.35
64 Otupiri E Wobil P Nguah SB et al Anthropometric measurements: options for identifying low birth weight newborns in Kumasi, Ghana PLoS One 2014 9 e106712 10.1371/journal.pone.0106712 25226505
65 Kc A Nelin V Vitrakoti R et al Validation of the foot length measure as an alternative tool to identify low birth weight and preterm babies in a low-resource setting like Nepal: a cross-sectional study BMC Pediatr 2015 15 43 10.1186/s12887-015-0361-4 25928804
66 Tergestina M Chandran S Kumar M et al Foot Length for Gestational Age Assessment and Identification of High-Risk Infants: A Hospital-Based Cross-Sectional Study J Trop Pediatr 2021 67 fmab010 10.1093/tropej/fmab010 34549786
67 Rosenberg RE Ahmed A Ahmed S et al Determining gestational age in a low-resource setting: validity of last menstrual period J Health Popul Nutr 2009 27 332 8 10.3329/jhpn.v27i3.3375 19507748
68 Keshwani AK Suroshe SS Correlation of neonatal gestational age with foot length and right nipple to umbilicus distance Int J Contemp Pediatr 2020 7 1319 10.18203/2349-3291.ijcp20202141
69 Roy RA Rao SS Mithra P Correlation of Foot Length and Gestational Maturity in Neonates-A Study from Coastal Karnataka Ind Jour of Publ Health Rese & Develop 2019 10 223 10.5958/0976-5506.2019.00492.3
70 Ahmed AA Estimation of stature using lower limb measurements in Sudanese Arabs J Forensic Leg Med 2013 20 483 8 10.1016/j.jflm.2013.03.019 23756519
71 Santiago-Nuño F Palomo-López P Becerro-de-Bengoa-Vallejo R et al Intra and Inter-rater Reliability between Ultrasound Imaging and Caliper Measures to determine Spring Ligament Dimensions in Cadavers Sci Rep 2019 9 14808 10.1038/s41598-019-51384-6 31616040
72 Fasoulakis Z Koutras A Antsaklis P et al Intrauterine Growth Restriction Due to Gestational Diabetes: From Pathophysiology to Diagnosis and Management Med Bogota Colomb 2023 59 1139 10.3390/medicina59061139
73 Fox NS Saltzman DH Oppal S et al The relationship between preeclampsia and intrauterine growth restriction in twin pregnancies Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014 211 422 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.05.035
74 Marchant T Penfold S Mkumbo E et al The reliability of a newborn foot length measurement tool used by community volunteers to identify low birth weight or premature babies born at home in southern Tanzania BMC Public Health 2014 14 859 10.1186/1471-2458-14-859 25142865
75 Ramakrishnan U Nutrition and low birth weight: from research to practice Am J Clin Nutr 2004 79 17 21 10.1093/ajcn/79.1.17 14684392
76 Yokoyama Y Jelenkovic A Hur Y-M et al Genetic and environmental factors affecting birth size variation: a pooled individual-based analysis of secular trends and global geographical differences using 26 twin cohorts Int J Epidemiol 2018 47 1195 206 10.1093/ije/dyy081 29788280
77 Kierans WJ Joseph KS Luo Z-C et al Does one size fit all? The case for ethnic-specific standards of fetal growth BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2008 8 1 10.1186/1471-2393-8-1 18179721
78 Md O Garza C Onyango A et al WHO child growth standards based on length/height, weight and age 2006
79 Singhal R Jain S Chawla D et al Accuracy of New Ballard Score in Small-for-gestational Age Neonates J Trop Pediatr 2017 63 489 94 10.1093/tropej/fmx055 28977559
80 Pietravalle A Spolverato S Brasili L et al Comparison of alternative gestational age assessment methods in a low resource setting: a retrospective study BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2022 22 585 10.1186/s12884-022-04914-6 35869463
