Table 1.
Survey, demographic, and anthropometric characteristics of the study population (n = 1,800,322).
Table 2.
Weight estimation models (n = 1,800,322).
Table 3.
Comparison of Broselow Tape, Hong Kong formula, MUAC-only (MUAC1), and height-only (HEIGHT1) weight estimation models (n = 1,800,322).
Table 4.
Weight estimation by height-only model (HEIGHT1) fitted for three MUAC classes (n = 1,800,322).
Fig 1.
Forest plot showing Bland-Altman bias and 95% limits of agreement for weight estimation models.
Bias (circles) is a measure of accuracy (lower absolute values = better accuracy). 9%% LOA (error bars) is a measure of precision (narrower bars = better precision).
Table 5.
Weight estimation by height-only (HEIGHT 2) and height + MUAC (HEIGHT 3) models (n = 1,800,322).
Table 6.
Comparison of height + MUAC model (HEIGHT3) subgroups by survey period and WHO Region.
Fig 2.
Bland-Altman plot of height + MUAC (HEIGHT3) model.
Bias (dark line); 95% LOA (dotted lines).
Fig 3.
Proposed weight estimation tape based on height + MUAC (HEIGHT3) model.
(A) Scale drawing of height-based tape stratified according to 3 MUAC classes. (B) Step 1. Determine MUAC class with MUAC tape (red = MUAC < 115 mm; yellow = 115mm ≤ MUAC < 125 mm; green = MUAC ≥ 125 mm). Step 2. Measure length (in cm) from top of head (crown) to the heel with legs full extended. Estimate weight (in kg) using the appropriate MUAC scale.
Table 7.
Weight class by height-only (HEIGHT2) and height + MUAC (HEIGHT3) models.