↓ Skip to main content

Severely malnourished children with a low weight-for-height have similar mortality to those with a low mid-upper-arm-circumference: II. Systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition Journal, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 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
Severely malnourished children with a low weight-for-height have similar mortality to those with a low mid-upper-arm-circumference: II. Systematic literature review and meta-analysis
Published in
Nutrition Journal, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12937-018-0383-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emmanuel Grellety, Michael H. Golden

Abstract

The WHO recommended criteria for diagnosis of sever acute malnutrition (SAM) are weight-for-height/length Z-score (WHZ) of <- 3Z of the WHO2006 standards, a mid-upper-arm circumference (MUAC) of < 115 mm, nutritional oedema or any combination of these parameters. A move to eliminate WHZ as a diagnostic criterion has been made on the assertion that children with a low WHZ are healthy, that MUAC is a "superior" prognostic indicator of mortality and that adding WHZ to the assessment does not improve the prediction of death. Our objective was to examine the literature comparing the risk of death of SAM children admitted by WHZ or MUAC criteria. We conducted a systematic search for reports which examined the relationship of WHZ and MUAC to mortality for children less than 60 months. The WHZ, MUAC, outcome and programmatic variables were abstracted from the reports and examined. Individual study's case fatality rates were compared by chi-squared analysis and random effects meta-analyses for combined data. Twenty-one datasets were reviewed. All the patient studies had an ascertainment bias. Most were inadequate because they had insufficient deaths, used obsolete standards, combined oedematous and non-oedematous subjects, did not report the proportion of children with both deficits or the deaths occurred remotely after anthropometry. The meta-analyses showed that the mortality risks for children who have SAM by MUAC < 115 mm only and those with SAM by WHZ < -3Z only are not different. As the diagnostic criteria identify different children, this analysis does not support the abandonment of WHZ as an important independent diagnostic criterion for the diagnosis of SAM. Failure to identify such children will result in their being denied treatment and unnecessary deaths from SAM.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 18%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Other 8 7%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Researcher 8 7%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 43 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 14%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 47 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 02 August 2021.
All research outputs
#6,136,867
of 23,103,436 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#820
of 1,440 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,137
of 337,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#13
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,436 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,440 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.4. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 337,900 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.