↓ Skip to main content

Inconsistent diagnosis of acute malnutrition by weight-for-height and mid-upper arm circumference: contributors in 16 cross-sectional surveys from South Sudan, the Philippines, Chad, and Bangladesh

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition Journal, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 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
Inconsistent diagnosis of acute malnutrition by weight-for-height and mid-upper arm circumference: contributors in 16 cross-sectional surveys from South Sudan, the Philippines, Chad, and Bangladesh
Published in
Nutrition Journal, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12937-015-0074-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dominique Roberfroid, Lieven Huybregts, Carl Lachat, France Vrijens, Patrick Kolsteren, Benjamin Guesdon

Abstract

The two anthropometric indicators of acute malnutrition in children under 5 years, i.e. a Mid-Upper Arm Circumference < 125 mm (MUAC125) or a Weight-for-Height Z-score<-2 (WHZ-2), correlate poorly. We aimed at assessing the contribution of age, sex, stunting (Height-for-Age HAZ<-2), and low sitting-standing height ratio Z-score (SSRZ in the 1st tertile of the study population, called hereafter 'longer legs') to this diagnosis discrepancy. Data from 16 cross-sectional nutritional surveys carried out by Action Against Hunger International in South Sudan, the Philippines, Chad, and Bangladesh fed multilevel, multivariate regression models, with either WHZ-2 or MUAC125 as the dependent variable and age, sex, stunting, and 'longer legs' as the independent ones. We also compared how the performance of MUAC125 and WHZ-2 to detect slim children, i.e. children with a low Weight-for-Age (WAZ<-2) but no linear growth retardation (HAZ≥-2), was modified by the contributors. Overall 23.1 % of the 14,409 children were identified as acutely malnourished by either WHZ-2 or MUAC125, but only 28.5 % of those (949/3,328) were identified by both indicators. Being stunted (+17.8 %; 95 % CI: 14.8 %; 22.8 %), being a female (+16.5 %; 95 % CI: 13.5 %; 19.5 %) and being younger than 24 months (+33.6 %; 95 % CI: 30.4 %; 36.7 %) were factors strongly associated with being detected as malnourished by MUAC125 and not by WHZ-2, whereas having 'longer legs' moderately increased the diagnosis by WHZ-2 (+4.2 %; 95 % CI: 0.7 %; 7.6 %). The sensitivity to detect slim children by MUAC125 was 31.0 % (95 % CI: 26.8 %; 35.2 %) whereas it was 70.6 % (95 % CI: 65.4 %; 75.9 %) for WHZ-2. The sensitivity of MUAC125 was particularly affected by age (57.4 % vs. 18.1 % in children aged < 24 months vs. ≥ 24 months). Specificity was high for both indicators. MUAC125 should not be used as a stand-alone criterion of acute malnutrition given its strong association with age, sex and stunting, and its low sensitivity to detect slim children. Having 'longer legs' moderately increases the diagnosis of acute malnutrition by WHZ-2. Prospective studies are urgently needed to elucidate the clinical and physiological outcomes of the various anthropometric indicators of malnutrition.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 127 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 12%
Researcher 15 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Student > Postgraduate 9 7%
Other 21 16%
Unknown 21 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 11%
Social Sciences 8 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 4%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 31 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 11 January 2016.
All research outputs
#2,252,791
of 9,728,092 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#566
of 970 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,087
of 236,836 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#28
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,728,092 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 970 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.1. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 236,836 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.