Explore › Outcome › Poor growth
Outcome

Poor growth

Also known as: Poor growth at 18-22 months corrected age
3 findings 1 paper 4 related entities View in graph →

Related entities

interventions
History of gastrostomy tube placement1
conditions
Renal function impairment with growth failure1
populations
Children1
studys
PMC68157001

Findings (27)

None
decline

Gastrostomy tube placement in ELBW infants was associated with poor growth at follow-up, with infants having GT showing significantly higher odds of weight, height, and head circumference below the 10

Effect: decline; OR 2.64; CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36

Size: OR 2.64 CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36
PMC6815700
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
decline

Gastrostomy tube placement in ELBW infants was associated with poor growth at follow-up, with infants having GT showing significantly higher odds of weight, height, and head circumference below the 10

Effect: decline; OR 2.64; CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36

Size: OR 2.64 CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36
PMC6815700
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
decline

Gastrostomy tube placement in ELBW infants was associated with poor growth at follow-up, with infants having GT showing significantly higher odds of weight, height, and head circumference below the 10

Effect: decline; OR 2.64; CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36

Size: OR 2.64 CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36
PMC6815700
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
decline

Gastrostomy tube placement in ELBW infants was associated with poor growth at follow-up, with infants having GT showing significantly higher odds of weight, height, and head circumference below the 10

Effect: decline; OR 2.64; CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36

Size: OR 2.64 CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36
PMC6815700
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
decline

Gastrostomy tube placement in ELBW infants was associated with poor growth at follow-up, with infants having GT showing significantly higher odds of weight, height, and head circumference below the 10

Effect: decline; OR 2.64; CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36

Size: OR 2.64 CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36
PMC6815700
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
decline

Gastrostomy tube placement in ELBW infants was associated with poor growth at follow-up, with infants having GT showing significantly higher odds of weight, height, and head circumference below the 10

Effect: decline; OR 2.64; CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36

Size: OR 2.64 CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36
PMC6815700
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
decline

Gastrostomy tube placement in ELBW infants was associated with poor growth at follow-up, with infants having GT showing significantly higher odds of weight, height, and head circumference below the 10

Effect: decline; OR 2.64; CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36

Size: OR 2.64 CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36
PMC6815700
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
decline

Gastrostomy tube placement in ELBW infants was associated with poor growth at follow-up, with infants having GT showing significantly higher odds of weight, height, and head circumference below the 10

Effect: decline; OR 2.64; CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36

Size: OR 2.64 CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36
PMC6815700
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
decline

Gastrostomy tube placement in ELBW infants was associated with poor growth at follow-up, with infants having GT showing significantly higher odds of weight, height, and head circumference below the 10

Effect: decline; OR 2.64; CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36

Size: OR 2.64 CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36
PMC6815700
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
decline

Gastrostomy tube placement in ELBW infants was associated with poor growth at follow-up, with infants having GT showing significantly higher odds of weight, height, and head circumference below the 10

Effect: decline; OR 2.64; CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36

Size: OR 2.64 CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36
PMC6815700
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
decline

Gastrostomy tube placement in ELBW infants was associated with poor growth at follow-up, with infants having GT showing significantly higher odds of weight, height, and head circumference below the 10

Effect: decline; OR 2.64; CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36

Size: OR 2.64 CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36
PMC6815700
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
decline

Gastrostomy tube placement in ELBW infants was associated with poor growth at follow-up, with infants having GT showing significantly higher odds of weight, height, and head circumference below the 10

Effect: decline; OR 2.64; CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36

Size: OR 2.64 CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36
PMC6815700
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
decline

Gastrostomy tube placement in ELBW infants was associated with poor growth at follow-up, with infants having GT showing significantly higher odds of weight, height, and head circumference below the 10

Effect: decline; OR 2.64; CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36

Size: OR 2.64 CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36
PMC6815700
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
decline

Gastrostomy tube placement in ELBW infants was associated with poor growth at follow-up, with infants having GT showing significantly higher odds of weight, height, and head circumference below the 10

Effect: decline; OR 2.64; CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36

Size: OR 2.64 CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36
PMC6815700
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
decline

Gastrostomy tube placement in ELBW infants was associated with poor growth at follow-up, with infants having GT showing significantly higher odds of weight, height, and head circumference below the 10

Effect: decline; OR 2.64; CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36

Size: OR 2.64 CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36
PMC6815700
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
decline

Gastrostomy tube placement in ELBW infants was associated with poor growth at follow-up, with infants having GT showing significantly higher odds of weight, height, and head circumference below the 10

Effect: decline; OR 2.64; CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36

Size: OR 2.64 CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36
PMC6815700
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
decline

Gastrostomy tube placement in ELBW infants was associated with poor growth at follow-up, with infants having GT showing significantly higher odds of weight, height, and head circumference below the 10

Effect: decline; OR 2.64; CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36

Size: OR 2.64 CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36
PMC6815700
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
decline

Gastrostomy tube placement in ELBW infants was associated with poor growth at follow-up, with infants having GT showing significantly higher odds of weight, height, and head circumference below the 10

Effect: decline; OR 2.64; CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36

Size: OR 2.64 CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36
PMC6815700
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
decline

Gastrostomy tube placement in ELBW infants was associated with poor growth at follow-up, with infants having GT showing significantly higher odds of weight, height, and head circumference below the 10

Effect: decline; OR 2.64; CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36

Size: OR 2.64 CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36
PMC6815700
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
decline

Gastrostomy tube placement in ELBW infants was associated with poor growth at follow-up, with infants having GT showing significantly higher odds of weight, height, and head circumference below the 10

Effect: decline; OR 2.64; CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36

Size: OR 2.64 CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36
PMC6815700
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
decline

Gastrostomy tube placement in ELBW infants was associated with poor growth at follow-up, with infants having GT showing significantly higher odds of weight, height, and head circumference below the 10

Effect: decline; OR 2.64; CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36

Size: OR 2.64 CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36
PMC6815700
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
decline

Gastrostomy tube placement in ELBW infants was associated with poor growth at follow-up, with infants having GT showing significantly higher odds of weight, height, and head circumference below the 10

Effect: decline; OR 2.64; CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36

Size: OR 2.64 CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36
PMC6815700
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
decline

Gastrostomy tube placement in ELBW infants was associated with poor growth at follow-up, with infants having GT showing significantly higher odds of weight, height, and head circumference below the 10

Effect: decline; OR 2.64; CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36

Size: OR 2.64 CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36
PMC6815700
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
decline

Gastrostomy tube placement in ELBW infants was associated with poor growth at follow-up, with infants having GT showing significantly higher odds of weight, height, and head circumference below the 10

Effect: decline; OR 2.64; CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36

Size: OR 2.64 CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36
PMC6815700
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
decline

Gastrostomy tube placement in ELBW infants was associated with poor growth at follow-up, with infants having GT showing significantly higher odds of weight, height, and head circumference below the 10

Effect: decline; OR 2.64; CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36

Size: OR 2.64 CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36
PMC6815700
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
decline

Gastrostomy tube placement in ELBW infants was associated with poor growth at follow-up, with infants having GT showing significantly higher odds of weight, height, and head circumference below the 10

Effect: decline; OR 2.64; CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36

Size: OR 2.64 CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36
PMC6815700
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →
None
decline

Gastrostomy tube placement in ELBW infants was associated with poor growth at follow-up, with infants having GT showing significantly higher odds of weight, height, and head circumference below the 10

Effect: decline; OR 2.64; CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36

Size: OR 2.64 CI: 95% CI 2.07-3.36
PMC6815700
Finding details → · Paper → · Graph →

Papers (1)