ArticleJournal of health, population, and nutrition2023
Validation study on a prediction formula to estimate the weight of children & adolescents with special needs aged 2-18 years old.
Article in Journal of health, population, and nutrition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to validate two predictive formulas of weight estimating strategies in children with special needs, namely the Cattermole formula and the Mercy formula. METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional study with a universal sampling of children and adolescents with special needs aged 2-18 years old, diagnosed with cerebral palsy, down syndrome, autism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder was conducted at Community-Based Rehabilitation in Central Zone Malaysia. Socio-demographic data were obtained from files, and medical reports and anthropometric measurements (body weight, height, humeral length, and mid-upper arm circumference) were collected using standard procedures. Data were analysed using IBM SPSS version 26. The accuracy of the formula was determined by intraclass correlation, prediction at 20% of actual body weight, residual error (RE) and root mean square error (RMSE).
resultA total of 502 children with a median age of 7 (6) years were enrolled in this study. The results showed that the Mercy formula demonstrated a smaller degree of bias than the Cattermole formula (PE = 1.97 ± 15.99% and 21.13 ± 27.76%, respectively). The Mercy formula showed the highest intraclass correlation coefficient (0.936 vs. 0.858) and predicted weight within 20% of the actual value in the largest proportion of participants (84% vs. 48%). The Mercy formula also demonstrated lower RE (0.3 vs. 3.6) and RMSE (3.84 vs. 6.56) compared to the Cattermole formula. Mercy offered the best option for weight estimation in children with special needs in our study 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.