This is a guess as I do not have sight of the coverage assessment reports ... most coverage assessments using the CSAS, SQUEAC, or SLEAC methods look only at CMAM coverage for SAM cases (OTP + stabilisation centre + inpatient TFC or inpatient TFC only). There is no good reason to think that CMAM and SFP coverage will be the same. NOTE : These methods can be used for SFP coverage. This requires the use of house-to-house / door-to-door sampling because the active and adaptive / chain-refferal / snowball sampling methods that are commonly used in these surveys lacks case finding sensitivity for the more moderate MAM cases. Case finding sensitivity for the active and adaptive method from capture-recapture does in Ethiopia during the development of the CSAS method gave figures like this: < 70% WHM 100% 70%-74% WHM 75% 75-79% WHM 50% We were still using W/H then

Oops ... clicked "submit" by accident. We were still using W/H by NCHS then but there is no reason to think that this will change much for W/H using WGS or MUAC. Subsequent capture-recapture studies in Niger, Uganda, and Ethiopia confirm this for MUAC. The poor sensitivity for the moderate MAM cases means we ned to use a census type sample to find MAM cases with useful sensitivity.