Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Growth monitoring
  1. D Hall1,
  2. T Cole2,
  3. D Elliman3,
  4. P Gibson4,
  5. S Logan5,
  6. J Wales6
  1. 1
    Institute of General Practice, University of Sheffield, UK
  2. 2
    Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK
  3. 3
    Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK
  4. 4
    Surrey PCT, Surrey, UK
  5. 5
    Peninsula Medical School, Exeter, Devon, UK
  6. 6
    University of Sheffield and Sheffield Children’s Hospital, Sheffield, UK
  1. D Hall, Institute of General Practice, University of Sheffield; d.hall{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

The articles by Grote et al,1 and Fayter et al,2 in the March and April issues of Archives of Disease in Childhood, respectively, are important contributions to the thorny issue of growth monitoring as a community-wide screening tool. However the leading article on this theme in the April issue by Tam Fry, which criticises current UK policy developed at the “Coventry Consensus” on growth monitoring, and the “Atom” presented by the Editor, are misleading.

That Consensus meeting, contrary to what Fry implies, did indeed produce a consensus – as far as we know, just two out of over thirty members dissented. We have compared our recommendations with the evidence presented by Grote et al and Fayter et al. Grote et al found that length/height monitoring in children under the age of …

View Full Text