Here is a new article from the wasting and stunting (WaSt) technical interest group which examines the relationship between anthropometry and near term mortality in children.
There has been some recent articles promoting the the use of WHZ in CMAM programs. These articles have to be taken seriously even if the finding are based on the use of clinical data and likely to be subject to all sorts of selection biases. We used cohort data to look at this (and other) issues. The findings confirm that MUAC only programs do fail to pick up children with high mortality risk and that WUAC + WAZ (not WHZ) is likely to be the best combination of anthropometric indicators to use. This combination (i.e. MUAC and WAZ) will likely be most practical in setting where growth monitoring (GM) or growth monitoring and promotion (GMP) programs are running. Case finding in clinical setting may also prove useful.
Share and enjoy.
Thank you Mark, for sharing this valuable article
Answered:
6 years agoUPDATED VERSION
There is a mistake on Figure 1 and Figure 2 (Venn diagrams). The label "WHZ < -2.8" should read "WAZ < -2.8". This was caused but the journal (PHN) editing the set labels to make the text larger and not checking their work. I have fixed up the PDF. You can get the corrected version here.
Answered:
6 years agoThank you Mark for putting this up. It's very helpful!
Answered:
6 years ago