4.6 Article

Optimal Screening of Children with Acute Malnutrition Requires a Change in Current WHO Guidelines as MUAC and WHZ Identify Different Patient Groups

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0101159

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Timely treatment of acute malnutrition in children <5 years of age could prevent >500,000 deaths annually. Screening at community level is essential to identify children with malnutrition. Current WHO guidelines for community screening for malnutrition recommend a Mid Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) of <115 mm to identify severe acute malnutrition (SAM). However, it is currently unclear how MUAC relates to the other indicator used to define acute malnutrition: weight-for-height Z-score (WHZ). METHODS:Secondary data from >11,000 Cambodian children, obtained by different surveys between 2010 and 2012, was used to calculate sensitivity and ROC curves for MUAC and WHZ. FINDINGS: The secondary analysis showed that using the current WHO cut-off of 115 mm for screening for severe acute malnutrition over 90% of children with a weight-for-height z-score (WHZ) <-3 would have been missed. Reversely, WHZ< -3 missed 80% of the children with a MUAC<115 mm. CONCLUSIONS:The current WHO cut-off for screening for SAM should be changed upwards from the current 115 mm. In the Cambodian data-set, a cut-off of 133 mm would allow inclusion of >65% of children with a WHZ< -3. Importantly, MUAC and WHZ identified different sub-groups of children with acute malnutrition, therefore these 2 indicators should be regarded as independent from each other. We suggest a 2-step model with MUAC used a screening at community level, followed by MUAC and WHZ measured at a primary health care unit, with both indicators used independently to diagnose severe acute malnutrition. Current guidelines should be changed to reflect this, with treatment initiated when either MUAC <115 mm or WHZ< -3.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据