↓ Skip to main content

The accuracy of emergency weight estimation systems in children—a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Emergency Medicine, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#29 of 523)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
22 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The accuracy of emergency weight estimation systems in children—a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
International Journal of Emergency Medicine, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12245-017-0156-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mike Wells, Lara Nicole Goldstein, Alison Bentley

Abstract

The safe and effective administration of fluids and medications during the management of medical emergencies in children depends on an appropriately determined dose, based on body weight. Weight can often not be measured in these circumstances and a convenient, quick and accurate method of weight estimation is required. Most methods in current use are not accurate enough, but the newer length-based, habitus-modified (two-dimensional) systems have shown significantly higher accuracy. This meta-analysis evaluated the accuracy of weight estimation systems in children. Articles were screened for inclusion into two study arms: to determine an appropriate accuracy target for weight estimation systems; and to evaluate the accuracy of existing systems using standard meta-analysis techniques. There was no evidence found to support any specific goal of accuracy. Based on the findings of this study, a proposed minimum accuracy of 70% of estimations within 10% of actual weight (PW10 > 70%), and 95% within 20% of actual weight (PW20 > 95%) should be demonstrated by a weight estimation system before being considered to be accurate. In the meta-analysis, the two-dimensional systems performed best. The Mercy method (PW10 70.9%, PW20 95.3%), the PAWPER tape (PW10 78.0%, PW20 96.6%) and parental estimates (PW10 69.8%, PW20 87.1%) were the most accurate systems investigated, with the Broselow tape (PW10 55.6%, PW20 81.2%) achieving a lesser accuracy. Age-based estimates achieved a very low accuracy. Age- and length-based systems had a substantial difference in over- and underestimation of weight in high-income and low- and middle-income populations. A benchmark for minimum accuracy is recommended for weight estimation studies and a PW10 > 70% with PW20 > 95% is suggested. The Mercy method, the PAWPER tape and parental estimates were the most accurate weight estimation systems followed by length-based and age-based systems. The use of age-based formulas should be abandoned because of their poor accuracy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 17%
Student > Master 8 17%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Researcher 5 10%
Other 5 10%
Other 10 21%
Unknown 7 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 15%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 8 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 August 2021.
All research outputs
#1,044,247
of 18,957,622 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Emergency Medicine
#29
of 523 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,431
of 287,799 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Emergency Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,957,622 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 523 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 287,799 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them