ABSTRACT
Mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) or weight-for-height/length Z-score (WHZ) are recommended in wasting diagnosis, but there are discrepancies between these indicators in identifying children as wasted. We compared the extent to which WHZ, MUAC, MUAC-for-age Z-score (MAZ) identify the same children as wasted and assessed the predictors of discordance and concordance in wasting diagnosis by these indicators using data from a longitudinal study of children younger than 3 years at recruitment in Turkana and Samburu counties. Wasting prevalence was consistently lower based on MUAC than WHZ and MAZ. Compared to WHZ, MAZ had higher sensitivity than MUAC, with the sensitivity of MAZ increasing and MUAC decreasing with age. Both indicators had high specificity. WHZ had a better agreement with MAZ than MUAC in wasting diagnosis. Older children were less likely to be classified as wasted by MUAC alone or by both MUAC and WHZ but were more likely to be classified as wasted by WHZ alone, MAZ alone or by both MAZ and WHZ. Compared to girls, boys were less likely to be classified as wasted by MUAC alone but more likely to be classified as wasted by WHZ alone. Stunted children were more likely to be classified as wasted by MUAC alone, MAZ alone, both MUAC and WHZ, and both MAZ and WHZ but not by WHZ alone. Classifications of wasting based on WHZ, MAZ, and MUAC are age, sex, and stunting status dependent. Compared to WHZ, MAZ is a more reliable and valid indicator than MUAC in these settings.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The Nawiri Longitudinal Study was made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) (Award Number: 72DFFP19CA00003). The contents of this paper are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The African Population and Health Research Center (APHRC) obtained ethical and research approvals and research permits from Amref Health Africa Ethical and Scientific Review Committee (Amref ESRC P905/2020) and the National Commission for Science, Technology, and Innovation of Kenya and signed a reliance agreement with RTI International Institutional Review Board for the research
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data underlying this study will be made available to researchers through the APHRC Microdata Portal.
