The Indian Journal of Pediatrics

, Volume 57, Issue 3, pp 389–393 | Cite as

Standard curves for mid arm circumference and mid-arm/head circumference ratio in newborns

  • Jagdish Narain Sharma
  • S. Saxena
  • U. Sharma
Original Articles


One Thousand singleton neonates, between 28 and 44 weeks of estimated gestational age (EGA) were measured within 48 hours of their birth for upper mid-arm circumference (MAC), head circumference (HC) and birth weight (BW). Regression analysis was used to draw standard curves for MAC versus EGA and mid-arm circumference/head circumference ratio (MAC/HC) versus EGA. Correlation coefficients were 0.961 for MAC versus EGA and 0.889 for MAC/HC versus EGA (p < 0.001). MAC, MAC/HC and HC were also highly correlated with birth weight (p < 0.001). These standard curves make available a discriminating method for evaluation of intra-uterine growth and a noninvasive technique for following somatic protein status in growing preterm infants.

Key Words

Anthropometry Newborn Birth weight Fetal growth 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Georgieff MK, Sasanow SR, Mammel MC, Pereira GR. Mid-arm circumference/head circumference ratio for identification of symptomatic LGA, AGA and SGA newborn infants.J Pediatr 1986; 109:316–321.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sasnow SR. Georgieff MK, Pereira GR. Mid-arm circumference and mid-arm/ head circumference ratios: standard curves for anthropometric assessment of neonatal nutritional status.J Pediatr 1986; 109:311–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Meadows NJ, Till J, Leaf A et al. Screening for intra-uterine growth retardation using ratio of mid-arm circumference to occipitofrontal circumference.Br Med J 1986; 292: 1039–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moskowitz SR, Georgieff MK, Pereira GR, Watkins B. Mid-arm circumference/ head circumference ratio as an anthropometric measure of protein calorie deprivation in preterm infants.J Am Col Nutr 1983;2: 284–289.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dubowitz LMS, Dubowitz V, Goldberg C. Clinical assessment of gestational age in the newborn infant.J Pediatr 1970; 77: 1–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jelliffe DB. The assessment of nutritional status of the community.WHO Monogr 1966; 53: 64–76.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Armitage P.Statistical Methods in Medical Research. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific, 1971 : 83–104.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nine N, Hull CH, Tenkias TG, Bent DH.Statistical Programme for the Social Sci.ences, 2nd ed. New York: Mc Graw Hill, 1975 : 197–210.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ziegler EE, O’Donnel AM, Nelson SE et al. Body composition of the reference fetus.Growth 1976; 40: 239–243.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kanawati AA, Haddad N, McLaren DS. The arm circumference as a public health index of protein calorie malnutrition for early childhood: preliminary results with mid-arm and muscle mid-arm circumference used as nutritional screening procedures for pre-school children in Lebanon.J Trop Pediatr 1969; 15 : 233–238.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bhatia BD, Tyagi NK. Birth weight: relationship with other fatal anthropometric parameters.Indian Pediatr 1984; 21 : 833–838.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Saigal S, Srivastava JR. Anthropometric studies of 1000 consecutive newborns with special reference to determine criteria of prematurity.Indian Pediatr 1969; 6: 24–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Burgess HJL, Burgess AP. The arm circumference as a public health index of protein calorie malnutrition of early childhood. A modified standard for mid-arm circumference in young children.J Trop Pediatr 1969; 15: 189–194.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kagan BM, Felix N, Molander CW et al. Body water changes in relation to nutrition of premature infants.Ann N Y Acad Sci 1963; 110: 830–835.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Excler JL, Sann L, Lashe Y et al. Anthropometric assessment of nutritional status in newborn infants: Discriminative value of mid-arm circumference and skin fold thickness.Early Hum Dev 1985; 11 : 169–173.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Geogrieff MK, Sasanow SR, Periera GR et al. Mid-arm circumference/Head circumference (MAC/HC) for identification of intra-uterine growth disorders in neonates.J Am Coll Nutr 1984; 3: 263–268.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Freedman LS, Samuels S, Fish I et al. Sparing of the brain in neonatal undernutrition: amino acid transport and incorporation into brain and muscle.Science 1980; 207: 902–904.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kanawati AA, Mc Laren DS. Assessment of marginal malnutrition,Nature 1970; 228: 573–575.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Georgieff MK, Sasanow SR, Chockalingam et al. A comparison of the midarm circumference/head circumference ratio and ponderal index for the evaluation of newborn infants after abnormal growth.Acta Pediatr Scand 1988; 77: 214–219.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr. K C Chaudhuri Foundation 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jagdish Narain Sharma
    • 1
  • S. Saxena
    • 1
  • U. Sharma
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pediatrics, Sir Padampat Mother and Child Health InstituteS.M.S. Medical CollegeJaipurIndia

Personalised recommendations