Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33534818›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Relapse and post-discharge body composition of children treated for acute malnutrition using a simplified, combined protocol: A nested cohort from the ComPAS RCT.

Natasha Lelijveld, Eunice Musyoki, Susan Were Adongo, Amy Mayberry, Jonathan C Wells, Charles Opondo, Marko Kerac, Jeanette Bailey

Open access · goldAbstract readEquivalence Trial
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Natasha LelijveldNo Wasted Lives, Action Against Hunger, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8452-0198
Eunice MusyokiInternational Rescue Committee, Nairobi, Kenya.
Susan Were AdongoInternational Rescue Committee, Nairobi, Kenya.
Amy MayberryNo Wasted Lives, Action Against Hunger, London, United Kingdom.
Jonathan C WellsChildhood Nutrition Research Centre, UCL Great Ormond Street, Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Charles OpondoDepartment of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Marko KeracDepartment of Population Health, Centre for Maternal, Adolescent and Child Health (MARCH), London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3745-7317
Jeanette BaileyDepartment of Population Health, Centre for Maternal, Adolescent and Child Health (MARCH), London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4343-4939
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSevere and moderate acute malnutrition (SAM and MAM) affect more than 50 million children worldwide yet 80% of these children do not access care. The Combined Protocol for Acute Malnutrition Study (ComPAS) trial assessed the effectiveness of a simplified, combined SAM/MAM protocol for children aged 6-59 months and found non-inferior recovery compared to standard care. To further inform policy, this study assessed post-discharge outcomes of children treated with this novel protocol in Kenya.

methodsSix 'combined' protocol clinics treated SAM and MAM children using an optimised mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC)-based dose of ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF). Six 'standard care' clinics treated SAM with weight-based RUTF rations; MAM with ready-to-use supplementary food (RUSF). Four months post-discharge, we assessed anthropometry, recent history of illness, and body composition by bioelectrical impedance analysis. Data was analysed using multivariable linear regression, adjusted for age, sex and allowing for clustering by clinic.

resultsWe sampled 850 children (median age 18 months, IQR 15-23); 44% of the original trial sample in Kenya. Children treated with the combined protocol had similar anthropometry, fat-free mass, fat mass, skinfold thickness z-scores, and frequency of common illnesses 4 months post-discharge compared the standard protocol. Mean subscapular skinfold z-scores were close to the global norm (standard care: 0.24; combined 0.27). There was no significant difference in odds of relapse between protocols (SAM, 3% vs 3%, OR = 1.0 p = 0.75; MAM, 10% vs 12%, OR = 0.90 p = 0.34).

conclusionsDespite the lower dosage of RUTF for most SAM children in the combined protocol, their anthropometry and relapse rates at 4 months post-discharge were similar to standard care. MAM children treated with RUTF had similar body composition to those treated with RUSF and neither group exhibited excess adiposity. These results add further evidence that a combined protocol is as effective as standard care with no evidence of adverse effects post-discharge. A simplified, combined approach could treat more children, stretch existing resources further, and contribute to achieving Sustainable Development Goal Two.

Indexed as

AftercareBody CompositionSevere Acute MalnutritionAnthropometryChild, PreschoolCohort StudiesFemaleHumansInfantKenyaMaleRecurrenceSudanTreatment OutcomeWeight Gain

Identifiers

PMID33534818
PMCPMC7857614
OpenAlexW3128651414

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.