Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
Acknowledgements
Authors’ reply
Book Review
Book Reviews
Classics In Indian Medicine
Clinical Case Report
Clinical Case Reports
Clinical Research Methods
Clinico-pathological Conference
Clinicopathological Conference
Conferences
Correspondence
Corrigendum
Editorial
Eminent Indians in Medicine
Errata
Erratum
Everyday Practice
Film Review
History of Medicine
HOW TO DO IT
Images In Medicine
Indian Medical Institutions
Letter from Bristol
Letter from Chennai
Letter From Ganiyari
Letter from Glasgow
Letter from London
Letter from Mangalore
Letter From Mumbai
Letter From Nepal
Masala
Medical Education
Medical Ethics
Medicine and Society
News From Here And There
Notice of Retraction
Notices
Obituaries
Obituary
Original Article
Original Articles
Review Article
Selected Summaries
Selected Summary
Short Report
Short Reports
Speaking for Myself
Speaking for Ourselve
Speaking for Ourselves
Students@nmji
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
Acknowledgements
Authors’ reply
Book Review
Book Reviews
Classics In Indian Medicine
Clinical Case Report
Clinical Case Reports
Clinical Research Methods
Clinico-pathological Conference
Clinicopathological Conference
Conferences
Correspondence
Corrigendum
Editorial
Eminent Indians in Medicine
Errata
Erratum
Everyday Practice
Film Review
History of Medicine
HOW TO DO IT
Images In Medicine
Indian Medical Institutions
Letter from Bristol
Letter from Chennai
Letter From Ganiyari
Letter from Glasgow
Letter from London
Letter from Mangalore
Letter From Mumbai
Letter From Nepal
Masala
Medical Education
Medical Ethics
Medicine and Society
News From Here And There
Notice of Retraction
Notices
Obituaries
Obituary
Original Article
Original Articles
Review Article
Selected Summaries
Selected Summary
Short Report
Short Reports
Speaking for Myself
Speaking for Ourselve
Speaking for Ourselves
Students@nmji
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Original Article
2016:29:2;73-81
PMID: 27586210

Estimating the burden of 'weighing less': A systematic review and meta-analysis of low birth-weight in India

Meenakshi Bhilwar1 , Ravi Prakash Upadhyay1 , Kapil Yadav2 , Rakesh Kumar2 , Palanivel Chinnakali3 , Smita Sinha4 , Shashi Kant2
1 Department of Community Medicine, Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India
2 Centre for Community Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
3 Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgradaute Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India
4 Department of Community Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India

Corresponding Author:
Meenakshi Bhilwar
Department of Community Medicine, Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi
India
dr.meenakshi.bhilwar@gmail.com
How to cite this article:
Bhilwar M, Upadhyay RP, Yadav K, Kumar R, Chinnakali P, Sinha S, Kant S. Estimating the burden of 'weighing less': A systematic review and meta-analysis of low birth-weight in India. Natl Med J India 2016;29:73-81
Copyright: (C)2016 The National Medical Journal of India

Abstract

Background. The National Family Health Survey-3 (NFHS- 3; 2005-06) reports that the prevalence of low birth-weight babies is 22% in India. This old figure is probably an underestimate as this nationwide survey acquired information on birth-weight of only 34% of babies. We aimed to make a fresh estimate of the proportion of low birth-weight babies. Methods. A systematic search was done through PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, Medline, IndMed, Embase, WHO and Biomed Central databases. Studies published from 2004 to 2014 were included. Study quality was assessed using the adapted Mirza and Jenkins checklist. An 'adjustment' of 24% was applied to the published estimates where data were collected through records or through a combination of records and anthropometry. The adjustment was done to account for the heaping of birth-weight data at 2500 g. Metaanalysis using both random and fixed effects model was done to derive an estimate. Results. Nineteen studies with 44 133 subjects were included in the review. The pooled estimate for the prevalence of low birth-weight was 27% (95% CI 24%-30%) and the 'adjusted' pooled prevalence was 31% (95% CI 28%-33%). The prevalence in urban and rural areas was 30% (95% CI 23%- 38%) and 26% (95% CI 22%-30%), respectively. Regionwise estimates revealed that the prevalence at 33% was comparatively higher in eastern regions (95% CI 29%-37%). Conclusion. The pooled prevalence of low birth-weight is higher than that reported by NFHS-3. Updated estimates should be used to guide future interventions and policies.


Fulltext Views
1,212

PDF downloads
567
Show Sections