Observational studyMedicine2019
Mid-arm circumference method is invalid to estimate the body weight of elderly Emergency Department patients in the Netherlands.
Observational study in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06269861 (Evaluation of the Relation of the Body Weight Calculated by Visual Estimation and Anthropometric Measurements to the Actual Body Weight Measured by the Patient Transfer Scale in Critically Ill Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Evaluation of the Relation of the Body Weight Calculated by Visual Estimation and Anthropometric Measurements to the Actual Body Weight Measured by the Patient Transfer Scale in Critically Ill Patients
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the Emergency Department (ED) actual body weight (ABW) is essential for accurate drug dosing. Frequently, the ABW is unknown and direct measurement troublesome. A method using the mid-arm circumference (MAC) to estimate ABW has been developed and validated in the United States of America (USA). This study aimed to validate the MAC-formula for estimating ABW in the Dutch population and compare its performance within the American population.Data were obtained from the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) and extracted from the American National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) datasets. We included all subjects' ≥70 years whose MAC and weight were recorded and obtained additional anthropometric data. We used the equation: kg = 4 × MAC-50 to estimate the ABW of all subjects and compared results.We retrieved 723 and 972 subjects from the Dutch and American dataset, respectively. The MAC is better correlated with ABW in the American dataset when compared with the Dutch dataset (Pearson r = 0.84 and 0.68, respectively). Bland-Altman bias was -7.49 kg (Limits-of-Agreement [LOA] -27.5 to 12.27 kg) and -0.50 kg (LOA -20.99 to 19.99 kg) in the Dutch and American datasets, respectively.The MAC based formula to estimate ABW is a promising tool for the elderly American population. However it is not accurate within the Dutch elderly ED population. Consequently, it is not applicable to Dutch EDs. This study highlights that the results of anthropometric studies performed within the USA are not per se generalizable to the European population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.