The Indian Journal of Pediatrics

, Volume 66, Issue 4, pp 483–492 | Cite as

Suitability of CANSCORE for the assessment of the nutritional status of newborns

  • M. Rajeshwar Rao
  • N. Balakrishna
  • K. Visweswara Rao
Original Article


The suitability of Clinical Assessment of Nutritional Status Score (CANSCORE) for the assessment of foetal malnutrition among 372 local Hyderabad newborns was studied. Details of length, weight and body mass index (BMI) at birth were related to total CANSCORE which consisted of scores ranging from 1 to 4 based on the grades of clinical status of hair, cheeks, buttocks, chest, legs, back, neck, arms and skin of anterior abdominal wall. The correlation coefficients of CANSCORE with the length, weight and BMI of newborns indicated that score of hair was least correlated with nutritional status. Normal newborns were found to have the lowest prevalence of foetal malnutrition. In those with retarded measurements of length and weight or BMI, the prevalence of foetal malnutrition was higher. The newborns with retardation of both length and BMI had higher prevalence of foetal malnutrition. The feasibility of the suggested limits of CANSCORE for the foetal malnutrition was assessed. Values of 24 for total CANSCORE and of 22 for “Modified CANSCORE” (score excluding hair as a parameter) were found appropriate for the assessment of foetal malnutrition. Modified CANSCORE is a simple, rapid and quantifiable method for the assessment of foetal malnutrition in term newborns.

Key words

Foetal malnutrition Total CANSCORE Correlation and discriminant function analysis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Clifford SH. Post maturity with placental dysfunction.J Pediatr 1954; 44:1–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Scott KE, Usher R. Foetal malnutrition, It’s incidence, causes and effects.AM J Obs and Gynaecol 1996; 94: 951–963.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Metteoff J. Clinical assessment of nutritional status at birth.Ped Clin N Amer 1994; 41 (5): 875–891.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fitzhardinge PM, Steven EM. The small — for date infant.Pediatrics, 1972; 50: 50–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Linda CE, Nutall JC, Klonoff H, Dunn HG. Developmental and psychological test scores in children of low birth weight.Pediatrics, 1970; 45: 9–20.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gerald JB. The relationship of the rate of intrauterine growth of the LBW infants to later growth.J Ped 1975; 86: 504–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ghai OP.Essential Pediatrics. 4th edition 1996; 3:89–90.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brenner WE, Edelman DA, Hendricks CH. A standard of fetal growth for USA.Am J Obs and Gynaecol 1976; 126:555–564.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Visweswara Rao K. Anthropometry for the assessment of various forms of malnutrition Available approaches and their relative merits.Man in India 1995; 75 (2): 185–207.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Visweswara Rao K. Biostatistics: A manual of statistical methods for use in health, nutrition, and anthropology. Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd. New Delhi, 1996.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meteoff J. Maternal fetal malnutritional relationships.Ped. Nutrition. London, Butterworth, 1985; 56–106.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meharban Singh.Care of Newborn. 4th edition 1991:112–125.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Agarwal DK, Verma M. Maternal malnutrition — physical anthropometry and foetal outcome.Update Growth 1987; 25–45.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr. K C Chaudhuri Foundation 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Rajeshwar Rao
    • 1
  • N. Balakrishna
    • 2
    • 3
  • K. Visweswara Rao
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PaediatricsGandhi HospitalSecunderabad
  2. 2.National Institute of NutritionIndian Council of Medical ResearchHyderabad
  3. 3.National Institute of NutritionIndian Council of Medical ResearchHyderabad

Personalised recommendations