MARATTO

review · Nutrition

Sensitivity and specificity of mid-upper arm circumference for assessment of severe acute malnutrition among children ages 6 to 59 months: Systematic review and meta-analysis

202211 citationsOpen accessDebre Berhan University

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Sensitivity is the proportion of people classified as diseased (i.e., no false negatives). A test with low sensitivity can be thought of as being too cautious in finding a positive result. METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines were followed for this systematic review and meta-analysis. The databases used were PubMed, Google Scholar, Jane, and African Journals Online. The search terms used were "sensitivity" and "specificity of and mid-upper arm circumference" (MUAC). A Joanna Briggs Institute meta-analysis and checklist for diagnostic test accuracy studies was used for the critical appraisal of the studies. The meta-analysis was conducted using STATA, version 14, software. The pooled sensitivity was computed to present the pooled sensitivity at a 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: A total of 11 individual studies were included in the meta-analysis. The lowest sensitivity of MUAC with the detection of severe acute malnutrition (SAM) was 5% in Vietnam, and the highest sensitivity was at 43.2% in India. The pooled sensitivity of MUAC among children aged <5 y to determine SAM was 20.7% (range, 13.24%-28.25%; P = 0.001). Based on the pooled specificity of MUAC, the detection of SAM was 97.636% (95% CI, 96.339%-98.932%; P = 0.001), and the pooled optimal cutoff point to diagnose SAM was 13.23 cm (95% CI, 12.692-13.763 cm; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of MUAC is lower compared with the specificity to detect SAM, and varies from area to area.

Research topics

  • Nutrition and Health in Aging
  • Child Nutrition and Water Access
  • Child Nutrition and Feeding Issues

Sustainable Development Goals

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2022.111918

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.