Methods of nutrition surveillance in low-income countries

Background In 1974 a joint FAO/UNICEF/WHO Expert Committee met to develop methods for nutrition surveillance. There has been much interest and activity in this topic since then, however there is a lack of guidance for practitioners and confusion exists around the terminology of nutrition surveillance. In this paper we propose a classification of data collection activities, consider the technical issues for each category, and examine the potential applications and challenges related to information and communication technology. Analysis There are three major approaches used to collect primary data for nutrition surveillance: repeated cross-sectional surveys; community-based sentinel monitoring; and the collection of data in schools. There are three major sources of secondary data for surveillance: from feeding centres, health facilities, and community-based data collection, including mass screening for malnutrition in children. Surveillance systems involving repeated surveys are suitable for monitoring and comparing national trends and for planning and policy development. To plan at a local level, surveys at district level or in programme implementation areas are ideal, but given the usually high cost of primary data collection, data obtained from health systems are more appropriate provided they are interpreted with caution and with contextual information. For early warning, data from health systems and sentinel site assessments may be valuable, if consistent in their methods of collection and any systematic bias is deemed to be steady. For evaluation purposes, surveillance systems can only give plausible evidence of whether a programme is effective. However the implementation of programmes can be monitored as long as data are collected on process indicators such as access to, and use of, services. Surveillance systems also have an important role to provide information that can be used for advocacy and for promoting accountability for actions or lack of actions, including service delivery. Conclusion This paper identifies issues that affect the collection of nutrition surveillance data, and proposes definitions of terms to differentiate between diverse sources of data of variable accuracy and validity. Increased interest in nutrition globally has resulted in high level commitments to reduce and prevent undernutrition. This review helps to address the need for accurate and regular data to convert these commitments into practice

Phylogeny of the tropical tree family Dipterocarpaceae based on nucleotide sequences of the chloroplast RBCL gene

The Dipterocarpaceae, well-known trees of the Asian rain forests, have been variously assigned to Malvales and Theales. The family, if the Monotoideae of Africa (30 species) and South America and the Pakaraimoideae of South America (one species) are included, comprises over 500 species. Despite the high diversity and ecological dominance of the Dipterocarpaceae, phylogenetic relationships within the family as well as between dipterocarps and other angiosperm families remain poorly defined. We conducted parsimony analyses on rbcL sequences from 35 species to reconstruct the phylogeny of the Dipterocarpaceae. The consensus tree resulting from these analyses shows that the members of Dipterocarpaceae, including Monotes and Pakaraimaea, form a monophyletic group closely related to the family Sarcolaenaceae and are allied to Malvales. The present generic and higher taxon circumscriptions of Dipterocarpaceae are mostly in agreement with this molecular phylogeny with the exception of the genus Hopea, which forms a clade with Shorea sections Anthoshorea and Doona. Phylogenetic placement of Dipterocarpus and Dryobalanops remains unresolved. Further studies involving representative taxa from Cistaceae, Elaeocarpaceae, Hopea, Shorea, Dipterocarpus, and Dryobalanops will be necessary for a comprehensive understanding of the phylogeny and generic limits of the Dipterocarpaceae