4.5 Article

Novel weight estimation equation for children with cerebral palsy in low-resource settings: Validation in a population-based cohort

期刊

DEVELOPMENTAL MEDICINE AND CHILD NEUROLOGY
卷 65, 期 4, 页码 517-525

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/dmcn.15413

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The novel equation to estimate weight from mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) among children with cerebral palsy (CP) was validated and found to be accurate, which is important for low-resource and low- and middle-income countries.
Aim To validate a novel equation to estimate weight from mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) among children with cerebral palsy (CP) in rural Bangladesh. Method Children with CP aged 2 to 18 years registered in the Bangladesh CP Register were randomly selected. Data on sociodemographics, Gross Motor Function Classification System level, and anthropometric measurements were extracted. Bland-Altman plots with a 95% agreement limit and Lin's concordance correlation coefficient with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported to measure agreement between observed and estimated weight. Percentage error was used to determinate the method's accuracy. Results There were 497 participants with a mean age at assessment of 9 years (SD 4 years 11 months) (47.7% female). Lin's concordance correlation coefficient between the observed and estimated weights was 0.90 (95% CI 0.89-0.92). Bland-Altman plots showed a reasonable accuracy of the equation in the study cohort. The mean percentage error of the equation was 5.04%. The average difference between observed and estimated weights was -1.02 kg (SD 5.1). The differences between observed and estimated weights were significantly greater among children with weight-for-age, height-for-age, or BMI-for-age z-scores less than or equal to -4. Interpretation It is possible to predict the weight of children with CP from MUAC with sufficient accuracy. The equation can be used for populations in low-resources and low- and middle-income countries.

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

4.5
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