Assessment of the Gold Standard Test for Fetal Malnutrition Using Statistical and Boolean Analyses

Irum  Javed; Waleed  Ahmad; Nazish  Fayaz; Tayyaba  Khaliq; Asbah  Fayyaz; Hissan  Hafeez

doi:10.36283/ziun-pjmd14-4/030

Authors

Irum Javed Poonch Medical College ,Rawalakot, AJK, Pakistan.
Waleed Ahmad University of Poonch Rawalakot, AJK,Pakistan.
Nazish Fayaz Tehsil Head Quarter Hospital Abbaspur, AJK ,Pakistan.
Tayyaba Khaliq Tehsil Headquarter (THQ) Hospital, Trarkhel, AJK,Pakistan.
Asbah Fayyaz Poonch Medical College ,Rawalakot, AJK, Pakistan.
Hissan Hafeez University of Poonch Rawalakot, Azad Kashmir. Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36283/ziun-pjmd14-4/030

Keywords:

Fetal malnutrition, BMI , Ponderal Index , MUAC/HC ratio , CANSCORE , Neonatal Nutrition, Anthropometric Screening

Abstract

Background: Fetal malnutrition (FM), defined by inadequate fat and muscle deposition in utero, poses serious risks to neonatal and long-term health. Early identification is vital for prompt intervention. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of Body Mass Index (BMI), Ponderal Index (PI), and Mid-Upper Arm Circumference to Head Circumference ratio (MUAC/HC) against the Clinical Assessment of Nutritional Status Score (CANSCORE) for detecting FM.

Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted at CMH Rawalakot, AJK, from December 2022 to July 2023. The study included 320 live singleton neonates between 28–42 weeks of gestation. Neonates with congenital anomalies, macrosomia from diabetic mothers, or multiple pregnancies were excluded. Within 48 hours of birth, each neonate underwent anthropometric measurements (weight, length, HC, MUAC) by a single observer. Derived indices included BMI, PI, and MUAC/HC. CANSCORE (<25 indicating FM) was also recorded. Statistical analyses, including sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of FM assessment tools, were performed using MATLAB, with significance set at p < 0.05.

Results: Using CANSCORE as the reference, BMI showed the highest sensitivity (92.9%) and NPV (95.1%), while PI demonstrated the highest specificity (81.6%) and PPV (70.9%). Error analysis revealed that BMI had the lowest total error and strongest consistency with other indices. A comparative literature review confirmed the superior diagnostic value of BMI and PI. All comparisons were statistically significant (p < 0.05)

Conclusion: BMI outperformed other measures in detecting FM, making it a practical and reliable tool for clinical screening. It offers a valuable alternative to CANSCORE, especially in resource-limited settings.

Author Biographies

Irum Javed, Poonch Medical College ,Rawalakot, AJK, Pakistan.

Department of Pediatrics,
Waleed Ahmad, University of Poonch Rawalakot, AJK,Pakistan.

Department of Electrical Engineering,
Nazish Fayaz, Tehsil Head Quarter Hospital Abbaspur, AJK ,Pakistan.

Department of Gynecology,
Tayyaba Khaliq, Tehsil Headquarter (THQ) Hospital, Trarkhel, AJK,Pakistan.

Department of Health and Population and Senior Medical Officer,
Asbah Fayyaz, Poonch Medical College ,Rawalakot, AJK, Pakistan.

Department of Gynaecology and Senior Registrar,
Hissan Hafeez, University of Poonch Rawalakot, Azad Kashmir. Pakistan

Department of Electrical Engineering,

References

1. Fabre E, de Agüero RG, de Agustín JL, Ezquerra A. Intrauterine growth restriction: concept and epidemiology. In: Kurjak A, Chervenak FA, editors. Textbook of Perinatal Medicine. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2006 Sep 25. p. 1288–96.

2. Chelli SB, Surekha SM, Pulluru UR, Prithiviraj E, Sumathy G. A comparative study between CAN score and Ponderal Index in identifying nutritional status of the neonate. Int J Health Sci (Qassim). 2022;6(S6):3205–13. doi:10.53730/ijhs.v6nS6.11557.

3. Metcoff J. Clinical assessment of nutritional status at birth: fetal malnutrition and SGA are not synonymous. Pediatr Clin North Am. 1994 Aug;41(5):875–91. doi:10.1016/S0031-3955(16)38822-7.

4. Thomas TK, Kamath MK, Raj KH, Thomas T, Shetty HR. Clinical assessment of nutrition status score and body mass index in newborns: a comparative study. Int J Health Sci (Qassim). 2022;6(S6):10624–35. doi:10.53730/ijhs.v6nS6.14268.

5. Raza M, Imani B, Dordipour M, Pourbadakhshan N. Use of CAN score for clinical assessment of nutritional status of newborns at Ghaem Hospital, Mashhad, Iran: comparison with anthropometric criteria. J Pediatr Perspect. 2024 Apr;12(4):18712–20. doi:10.22038/ijp.2024.81405.5469.

6. Dhanorkar A, Bagdey P, Humne A, Ughade S, Yadav S, Khadse A. Comparison of fetal malnutrition by CANSCORE and other methods. Sch J Appl Med Sci. 2014 Jan;2(1B):209–12.

7. Dhanorkar A, Bagdey P, Humne A, Ughade S, Yadav S, Khadse A. Detection of fetal malnutrition at birth by clinical assessment of nutritional status score (CANSCORE). Int J Res Med Sci. 2014 Jan;4(1):1–5. doi:10.5455/2320-6012.ijrms20140201.

8. Ezenwa B, Iroha E, Ezeaka V, Egri-Okwaji M. Comparative study of Clinical Assessment of Nutritional Status Score and proportionality indices in the assessment of fetal malnutrition in term newborns. Niger Med J. 2016 Mar–Apr;57(2):124–8. doi:10.4103/0300-1652.182073.

9. Priyanka O, Sindgikar SP. Diagnostic utility of the CAN score and proportionality indices and variations in neutrophil- and platelet-lymphocyte ratios in fetal malnutrition. J Neonatol. 2024 Sep;38(3):433–8. doi:10.1177/09732179241262083.

10. Tharwani ZH, Bilal W, Khan HA, Kumar P, Butt MS, Hamdana AH, et al. Infant and child mortality in Pakistan and its determinants: a review. Inquiry. 2023 Apr;60:00469580231167024. doi:10.1177/00469580231167024.

11. Bhutta ZA, Das JK, Rizvi A, Gaffey MF, Walker N, Horton S, et al. Evidence-based interventions for improvement of maternal and child nutrition: what can be done and at what cost? Lancet. 2013 Aug 3;382(9890):452–77. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60996-4.

12. Jain S, Maheshwari A, Jain SK. Maternal nutrition and fetal/infant development. Clin Perinatol. 2022 Jun;49(2):313–30. doi:10.1016/j.clp.2022.02.004.

13. Rushdi RA. Fetal malnutrition: assessment by the CANS score versus anthropometry and impact on early neonatal morbidities [master’s thesis]. Cairo: Department of Pediatrics, Kasr Al-Ainy Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University; 2017. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rufaidah_Rushdi/contributions

14. Sindgikar SP, Rao S. Fetal malnutrition: features and impact. In: Patel VB, Preedy VR, editors. Handbook of Public Health Nutrition: International, National, and Regional Perspectives. Cham: Springer Nature; 2025 Jul 17. p. 1–21. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-55066-4_51-1.

15. Felix ML, Basantes C, Nicola S, Hidalgo S, Guevara-Ramírez P, Cadena-Ullauri S, et al. Nutritional status assessment of newborns: comparison of the CAN score (Metcoff methodology), growth curves, anthropometry, and plicometry. Nutrients. 2025 May 12;17(10):1642. doi:10.3390/nu17101642.

16. Gul H, Ullah I, Khan MQ, Hayat AK, Khan A, Asma B. Comparison of the CAN (Clinical Assessment of Nutrition) score with other anthropometric parameters to determine the importance of the skin-fold thickness for fetal nutrition assessment. Pak J Health Sci. 2023 Jun 30:87–91.

17. Almarzoki M, Jasim R. Comparative study between Clinical Assessment of Nutritional Status score (CAN Score) and anthropometry in the assessment of fetal malnutrition. Int Res J Med Sci. 2015 Jul;3(7):8–12.

18. Sukulal K, Cherian R, Vasan MT, Elizabeth KE. Evaluation of newborn nutritional status using CANSCORE within 48 hours of birth. Res J Med Sci. 2024 Feb 25;18:433–7.

19. Attia Bari AA, Alvi MM, Javed R, Alvi MY. Relationship of mid-upper arm circumference and body mass index for assessing maternal nutritional status. Pak Pediatr J. 2021;45(2):186–91.

20. Amarendra M, Yoganand M. Comparison of Clinical Assessment of Nutritional Status (CAN) score with other methods in the assessment of fetal malnutrition. Int J Contemp Pediatr. 2017 May–Jun;4(3):713–8. doi:10.18203/2349-3291.ijcp20170917.

21. Ezenwa BN, Ezeaka VC. Is CAN Score a good indicator of fetal malnutrition in preterm newborns? Alexandria J Med. 2018 Mar;54(1):57–61. doi:10.1016/j.ajme.2016.12.005.

22. Lim CY. Methods for evaluating the accuracy of diagnostic tests. Cardiovasc Prev Pharmacol. 2021 Jan 31;3(1):15–20. doi:10.36011/cpp.2021.3.e5.

23. Mor Y. Diagnostic test evaluation. In: Chatterjee S, Gemmete JJ, editors. Translational Interventional Radiology. Cambridge: Academic Press; 2023 Jan 1. p. 221–4. doi:10.1016/B978-0-323-90760-8.00043-6.

24. CF CF. Laboratory diagnosis. In: McPherson RA, Pincus MR, editors. Henry’s Clinical Diagnosis and Management by Laboratory Methods. 24th ed. South Asia ed. New Delhi: Elsevier; 2021 Jun 9. p. 331–6.

25. Herchline D, Rasooly IR, Bonafide C. Is that normal? A case of diagnostic error due to misinterpretation of laboratory findings. Hosp Pediatr. 2021 May;11(5):e78–81. doi:10.1542/hpeds.2020-001974.