ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2024
Caregiver use of MUAC tapes in South Sudan: a three-group prospective comparison.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Using Mid-Upper Arm Circumference z-score (MUACz) tapes for community-based assessment and monitoring of nutrition risks among young children: a qualitative analysis of experiences and lessons from southwest Kenya.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Exploring care-seeking practices within a family mid-upper arm circumference approach in South Sudan: a mixed-methods prospective study.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Using mid-upper arm circumferenceFrontiers in nutrition · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Nutrition program modifications occurred globally in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Within community management of acute malnutrition (CMAM), community screenings for acute malnutrition were replaced by caregivers monitoring child mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC), but questions remain about different MUAC tapes' performance and acceptability for caregiver use. Methods: The study was conducted in Central Equatoria and Warrap States, South Sudan, between March 2022 and January 2023. A three-group prospective non-randomized design was used to compare the performance of three MUAC tapes (UNICEF 2009, UNICEF 2020, and GOAL MAMI) used by caregivers. The primary outcome was the false negative rate (i.e., the proportion of children not identified as wasted by the caregiver but classified as wasted by enumerators). Caregivers with children aged 5-53 months were assigned to and trained on the use of 1 of the 3 tapes and followed for 8 months, including three monitoring visits and baseline/endline surveys. Results: Of the 2,893 enrolled children, 2,401 (83.0%) completed baseline, endline, and two or more monitoring visits. Only 3.7% of children were identified as wasted by caregivers and 3.8% by study team measurement. Cumulative measurement agreement between caregivers and enumerators was similar by tape. False negative and false positive rates were both <0.5% overall and similar among the tapes. There were differences in training needs and durability between the tapes, but all three were acceptable and performed equally well. Discussion: Caregiver measurement of child MUAC is feasible in South Sudan. The three MUAC tapes were acceptable, and caregivers could measure accurately with minimal support. All tapes performed similarly and are appropriate for use in Family MUAC programs in South Sudan. There were indications that the UNICEF 2020 tape may be less durable; the GOAL MAMI tape has the added benefit of being suitable for assessments of infants <6 months of age.
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.