Anthropometric Criteria for Identifying Infants Under 6 Months of Age at Risk of Morbidity and Mortality: A Systematic Review.

IF 1.7 Q2 PEDIATRICS
Clinical Medicine Insights-Pediatrics Pub Date : 2021-10-21 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1177/11795565211049904
Christoph Hoehn, Natasha Lelijveld, Martha Mwangome, James A Berkley, Marie McGrath, Marko Kerac
{"title":"Anthropometric Criteria for Identifying Infants Under 6 Months of Age at Risk of Morbidity and Mortality: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Christoph Hoehn,&nbsp;Natasha Lelijveld,&nbsp;Martha Mwangome,&nbsp;James A Berkley,&nbsp;Marie McGrath,&nbsp;Marko Kerac","doi":"10.1177/11795565211049904","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is increasing global focus on small and nutritionally at-risk infants aged <6 months (<6 m). Current WHO guidelines recommend weight-for-length <i>z</i>-score (WLZ) for enrolment to malnutrition treatment programmes but acknowledge a weak evidence-base. This review aims to inform future guidelines by examining which anthropometric criteria best identify infants <6 m at high risk of mortality/morbidity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Global Health, Cochrane Library and POPLINE for studies conducted in low- and middle-income countries and published between 1990 and October 2020. We included studies reporting anthropometric assessment of nutritional status in infants <6 m and assessed the association with subsequent morbidity or mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 19 studies were included in the final review, covering 20 countries, predominantly in sub-Saharan Africa. WLZ had poor reliability and poor prognostic ability to identify infants at risk of death. Mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) and weight-for-age <i>z</i>-score (WAZ) were better at identifying infants at risk of mortality/morbidity. MUAC-for-age <i>z</i>-score did not perform better than using a single MUAC cut-off. Suggested MUAC cut-offs for this age group varied by context, ranging from 10.5 to 11.5 cm. The assessment for reliability showed that length was difficult to measure, making WLZ the least reliable indicator overall.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Evidence from our review suggests that a change in current practice is necessary. To better identify small and nutritionally at-risk infants <6 m WAZ and/or MUAC rather than WLZ should be used. Future research should explore possible benefits for programme coverage, impact and cost-effectiveness. Research should also examine if context-specific MUAC thresholds are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":45027,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Medicine Insights-Pediatrics","volume":"15 ","pages":"11795565211049904"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8543668/pdf/","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Medicine Insights-Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11795565211049904","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

Background: There is increasing global focus on small and nutritionally at-risk infants aged <6 months (<6 m). Current WHO guidelines recommend weight-for-length z-score (WLZ) for enrolment to malnutrition treatment programmes but acknowledge a weak evidence-base. This review aims to inform future guidelines by examining which anthropometric criteria best identify infants <6 m at high risk of mortality/morbidity.

Methods: We searched Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Global Health, Cochrane Library and POPLINE for studies conducted in low- and middle-income countries and published between 1990 and October 2020. We included studies reporting anthropometric assessment of nutritional status in infants <6 m and assessed the association with subsequent morbidity or mortality.

Results: A total of 19 studies were included in the final review, covering 20 countries, predominantly in sub-Saharan Africa. WLZ had poor reliability and poor prognostic ability to identify infants at risk of death. Mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) and weight-for-age z-score (WAZ) were better at identifying infants at risk of mortality/morbidity. MUAC-for-age z-score did not perform better than using a single MUAC cut-off. Suggested MUAC cut-offs for this age group varied by context, ranging from 10.5 to 11.5 cm. The assessment for reliability showed that length was difficult to measure, making WLZ the least reliable indicator overall.

Conclusion: Evidence from our review suggests that a change in current practice is necessary. To better identify small and nutritionally at-risk infants <6 m WAZ and/or MUAC rather than WLZ should be used. Future research should explore possible benefits for programme coverage, impact and cost-effectiveness. Research should also examine if context-specific MUAC thresholds are needed.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

识别6岁以下婴儿的人体测量标准 发病率和死亡率风险的月龄:一项系统综述。
背景:全球越来越关注营养不良治疗计划中的z评分(WLZ)小婴儿和营养风险婴儿,但承认证据基础薄弱。这篇综述旨在通过检查哪些人体测量标准最能识别婴儿来为未来的指导方针提供信息。方法:我们搜索了Medline、EMBASE、CINAHL、Global Health、Cochrane Library和POPLINE,寻找1990年至2020年10月在中低收入国家进行的研究。我们纳入了报告婴儿营养状况人体测量评估的研究。结果:最终审查共纳入19项研究,涵盖20个国家,主要位于撒哈拉以南非洲。WLZ在识别有死亡风险的婴儿方面的可靠性和预后能力较差。上臂中围(MUAC)和年龄加权z评分(WAZ)更能识别有死亡/发病风险的婴儿。年龄z评分的MUAC并不比使用单个MUAC截止值表现得更好。该年龄组建议的MUAC截止值因环境而异,从10.5到11.5不等 对可靠性的评估表明,长度很难测量,使WLZ成为总体上最不可靠的指标。结论:我们审查的证据表明,有必要改变目前的做法。更好地识别小婴儿和营养风险婴儿
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信