ArticlePLOS global public health2023
Identifying underweight in infants and children using growth charts, lookup tables and a novel "MAMI" slide chart: A cross-over diagnostic and acceptability study.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Malnutrition is a leading cause of preventable deaths in infants and children. To benefit from treatment and prevention programmes, malnourished children must first be identified. Low weight-for-age is an anthropometric indicator of malnutrition which is gaining much recent attention because it is particularly effective at identifying children at highest risk of death. However, assessing weight-for-age can be challenging. We aimed to evaluate a novel, low-cost weight-for-age slide chart and compare its performance against two traditional methods. We conducted a cross-over diagnostic study comparing a new "MAMI" slide-chart against traditional growth charts and look-up tables. Participants were health and public health professionals working or studying in the UK. Each acted as their own control, using all three methods but in random order. Under timed conditions, they evaluated hypothetical scenarios, arranged in a random sequence. Each tool's diagnostic accuracy and response rate were compared. User preferences were also recorded. Sixty-two participants took part. Diagnostic accuracy was highest for the MAMI chart: 79%(351/445) correct assessments. Accuracy using look-up tables was 70%(308/438). Growth charts performed worst: 61%(217/353) correct (p-value<0.01). The mean number of scenarios (±SD) correctly identified by each participant in 4-minutes was 3.5(±2.19) using growth charts; 4.97(±2.50) using look-up tables; 5.66(±2.69) using MAMI charts (ANOVA, p-value<0.01). This translates to approximately 53, 75 and 85 correct assessments per participant in an hour for the respective tools. No statistically significant differences were found with participants' years of experience or profession type. Most participants, 43/62(69%), preferred the MAMI chart and reported it to be easier and faster to use than traditional tools. We conclude that weight-for-age assessment is quicker and more accurate using the newly-developed MAMI slide chart as opposed to traditional methods. It should be further field tested in other settings since the potential to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of treatment programmes is great.
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.