• Plos One · Jan 2019

    Observational Study

    A validation of the PAWPER XL-MAC tape for total body weight estimation in preschool children from low- and middle-income countries.

    • Mike Wells.
    • Division of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
    • Plos One. 2019 Jan 1; 14 (1): e0210332.

    ImportanceThe PAWPER tape system is one of the three most accurate paediatric weight estimation systems in the world. The latest version of the tape, which does not rely on a subjective assessment of habitus, is the PAWPER XL-MAC method which uses length and mid-arm circumference (MAC) to estimate weight. It was derived and validated in a population in the USA and has not yet been fully validated in a population from a resource-limited setting.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of the PAWPER XL-MAC tape weight estimation system in a large dataset sample of children from resource-limited settings.MethodsThis was a "virtual" study in which weight estimates were generated using the PAWPER XL-MAC tape and Broselow tape 2007B and 2011A editions in a very large open access dataset. The dataset contained anthropometric information of children aged 6 to 59 months from standardised nutritional surveys in 51 low- and middle-income countries. The performance of PAWPER XL-MAC method was compared with the Broselow tape and a new length- and habitus-based tape, the Ralston method.Main Outcomes And MeasuresThe bias of the weight estimation methods was assessed using the mean percentage error (MPE) and precision using the 95% limits of agreement (LOA) of the MPE. The overall accuracy was denoted by the percentage of weight estimates falling within 10% and 20% of actual weight (abbreviated as p10 and p20 respectively).ResultsThe MPE (LOA) for the PAWPER XL-MAC tape, the Broselow 2007B and 2011A and Ralston method were 1.9 (-15.3, 19.2), 5.4 (-15.9, 26.7), 7.7 (-13.3, 30.5) and -0.7 (-20.2, 19.3) respectively. The p10 and p20 for each method were 79.3% and 96.9% for the PAWPER XL-MAC tape, 64.3% and 91.0% for the Broselow tape 2007B, 55.5% and 85.9% for the Broselow tape 2011A and 67.4 and 94.0% for the Ralston method respectively. The PAWPER XL-MAC system was statistically significantly more accurate than the Broselow tape 2011A, the Broselow tape 2007B and the Ralston method. The relative difference in accuracy (p10) was 43% (odds ratio 4.4 (4.4, 4.5), p<0.001), 23% (odds ratio 2.9 (2.8, 2.9), p<0.001) and 18% (odds ratio 1.8 (1.8, 1.8), p<0.001) compared to each method, respectively.Conclusions And RelevanceThe PAWPER XL-MAC tape performed well in this study and was statistically significantly more accurate than both the Broselow tape editions and the Ralston method. This difference was substantial and clinically important. The tape did not perform as well at extremes of habitus-type, however, and might benefit from recalibration.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.