METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional study with a universal sampling of children and adolescents with special needs aged 2-18 years old, diagnosed with cerebral palsy, down syndrome, autism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder was conducted at Community-Based Rehabilitation in Central Zone Malaysia. Socio-demographic data were obtained from files, and medical reports and anthropometric measurements (body weight, height, humeral length, and mid-upper arm circumference) were collected using standard procedures. Data were analysed using IBM SPSS version 26. The accuracy of the formula was determined by intraclass correlation, prediction at 20% of actual body weight, residual error (RE) and root mean square error (RMSE).
RESULT: A total of 502 children with a median age of 7 (6) years were enrolled in this study. The results showed that the Mercy formula demonstrated a smaller degree of bias than the Cattermole formula (PE = 1.97 ± 15.99% and 21.13 ± 27.76%, respectively). The Mercy formula showed the highest intraclass correlation coefficient (0.936 vs. 0.858) and predicted weight within 20% of the actual value in the largest proportion of participants (84% vs. 48%). The Mercy formula also demonstrated lower RE (0.3 vs. 3.6) and RMSE (3.84 vs. 6.56) compared to the Cattermole formula. Mercy offered the best option for weight estimation in children with special needs in our study population.
STUDY DESIGN: We assessed data from 6414 children aged 6-18 years, collected by the South East Asia Community Observatory. Child underweight, overweight, and obesity were expressed according to 3 internationally used BMI references: World Health Organization 2007, International Obesity Task Force 2012, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2000. We assessed agreement in classification of anthropometric status among the references using Cohen's kappa statistic and estimated underweight, overweight, and obesity prevalence according to each reference using mixed effects Poisson regression.
RESULTS: There was poor to moderate agreement between references when classifying underweight, but generally good agreement when classifying overweight and obesity. Underweight, overweight, and obesity prevalence estimates generated using the 3 references were notably inconsistent. Overweight and obesity prevalence estimates were higher using the World Health Organization reference vs the other 2, and underweight prevalence was up to 8.5% higher and obesity prevalence was about 4% lower when using the International Obesity Task Force reference.
CONCLUSIONS: The choice of reference to express BMI may influence conclusions about child anthropometric status and malnutrition prevalence. This has implications regarding strategies for clinical management and public health interventions.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 134 geriatric patients with a mean age of 68.9 ± 8.4 who stayed at acute care wards in Hospital Tuanku Ampuan Rahimah, Klang from July 2017 to August 2017. The SGA, MNA, and GNRI were administered through face-to-face interviews with all the participants who gave their consent. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the GNRI and MNA were analyzed against the SGA. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to obtain the area under the curve (AUC) and suitable optimal cutoff values for both the GNRI and MNA.
RESULTS: According to the SGA, MNA, and GNRI, 26.9%, 42.5%, and 44.0% of the participants were malnourished, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for the GNRI were 0.622, 0.977, 0.982, and 0.558, respectively, while those for the MNA were 0.611, 0.909, 0.932, and 0.533, respectively. The AUC of the GNRI was comparable to that of the MNA (0.831 and 0.898, respectively). Moreover, the optimal malnutrition cutoff value for the GNRI was 94.95.
CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of malnutrition remains high among hospitalized elderly patients. Validity of the GNRI is comparable to that of the MNA, and use of the GNRI to assess the nutritional status of this group is proposed with the new suggested cutoff value (GNRI ≤ 94.95), as it is simpler and more efficient. Underdiagnosis of malnutrition can be prevented, possibly reducing the prevalence of malnourished hospitalized elderly patients and improving the quality of the nutritional care process practiced in Malaysia.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective cohort study was carried out among 684 infants attending goverment health clinics in 2 states in Malaysia. Body weight, length, and clinical assessment were measured on the same day for 9 visits, scheduled every month until 6 months of age and every 2 months until 12 months of age. All of the 3 z-scores for weight for age (WAZ), length for age (HAZ), and weight for length (WHZ) were calculated using WHO Anthro for Personal Computers software.
RESULTS: The average sensitivity and specificity for the visual clinical assessment for the detection of thinness were higher using the WHO 2006 standard as compared with using NCHS 1977. However, the overall sensitivity of the visual clinical assessment for the detection of thin and lean children was lower from 1 month of age until a year as compared with the WHO 2006 standard and NCHS 1977 reference. The positive predictive value (PPV) for the visual clinical assessment versus the WHO 2006 standard was almost doubled as compared with the PPV of visual clinical assessment versus the NCHS 1977 reference. The overall average sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and negative predictive value for the detection of stunting was higher for visual clinical assessment versus the WHO 2006 standard as compared with visual clinical assessment versus the NCHS 1977 reference.
CONCLUSION: The sensitivity and specificity of visual clinical assessment for the detection of wasting and stunting among infants are better for the WHO 2006 standard than the NCHS 1977 reference.