ArticleNutrients2023
A Prospective Comparison of Standard and Modified Acute Malnutrition Treatment Protocols during COVID-19 in South Sudan.
Article in Nutrients, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A non-randomized prospective cohort study was conducted in 2022 to compare recovery rate and length of stay (LoS) for acutely malnourished children treated under South Sudan's standard Community Management of Acute Malnutrition (CMAM) protocol and a COVID-modified protocol. Children aged 6-59 months received acute malnutrition (AM) treatment under the standard or modified protocol (mid-upper-arm circumference-only entry/exit criteria and simplified dosing). Primary (recovery rate and LoS) were compared for outpatient therapeutic (OTP) and therapeutic supplementary feeding programs (TSFP) using descriptive statistics and mixed-effects models. Children admitted to OTP under both protocols were similar in age and sex; children admitted to TSFP were significantly older under the modified protocol than the standard protocol. Shorter LoS and higher recovery rates were observed under the modified protocol for both OTP (recovery: 93.3% vs. 87.2%; LoS: 38.3 vs. 42.8 days) and TSFP (recovery: 79.8% vs. 72.7%; LoS: 54.0 vs. 61.9 days). After adjusting for site and child characteristics, neither differences in adjusted odds of recovery [OTP: 2.63; TSFP 1.80] nor LoS [OTP -10.0; TSFP -7.8] remained significant. Modified protocols for AM performed well. Adjusted models indicate similar treatment outcomes to the standard protocol. Adopting simplified protocols could be beneficial post-pandemic; however, recovery and relapse will need to be monitored.
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.