We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
BMI is a time-intensive measurement to assess nutritional status. Mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) has been studied as a proxy for BMI in adults, but there is no consensus on its optimal use.
Design:
We calculated sensitivity, specificity and area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCC) of MUAC for BMI < 18·5, <17 and <16 kg/m2. We designed a system using two MUAC cut-offs, with a healthy (non-thin) ‘green’ group, a ‘yellow’ group requiring BMI measurement and a ‘red’ group who could proceed directly to treatment for thinness.
Setting:
We retrospectively analysed monitoring data collected by the International Committee of the Red Cross in places of detention.
Participants:
11 917 male detainees in eight African countries.
Results:
MUAC had excellent discriminatory ability with AUROCC: 0·87, 0·90 and 0·92 for BMI < 18·5, BMI < 17 and BMI < 16 kg/m2, respectively. An upper cut-off of MUAC 25·5 cm to exclude healthy detainees would result in 64 % fewer detainees requiring BMI screening and had sensitivity 77 % (95 % CI 69·4, 84·7) and specificity 79·6 % (95 % CI 72·6, 86·5) for BMI < 18·5 kg/m2. A lower cut-off of MUAC < 21·0 cm had sensitivity 25·4 % (95 % CI 11·7, 39·1) and specificity 99·0 % (95 % CI 97·9, 100·0) for BMI < 16 kg/m2. An additional 50 kg weight requirement improved specificity to 99·6 % (95 % CI 99·0, 100·0) with similar sensitivity.
Conclusions:
A MUAC cut-off of 25·5 cm, above which detainees are classified as healthy and below receive further screening, would result in significant time savings. A cut-off of <21·0 cm and weight <50 kg can identify some detainees with BMI < 16 kg/m2 who require immediate treatment.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.