Finding the right MUAC cut-off to improve screening efficiency
Author Koert Ritmeijer, MSF Holland
In Hlaing Thayer township, Yangon, Burma, ORWs were spending a considerable amount of time doing weight and height measurements on all children visited, in order to refer less than 1% to the therapeutic feeding programme. MSF undertook a sensitivity analysis to determine the most appropriate MUAC indicator to use in a first stage screening. This was done to reduce the time spent on the screening excercise without reducing sensitivity.
In 1988, the government of Myanmar (Burma) started a resettlement scheme for urban slum populations, from the capital Yangon city to new areas around the city. Hlaingthayar is one of these newly formed satellite townships with a population of 157,000 inhabitants. A majority of those living in Hliangthayar are very poor and rely on daily wages as day labourers, factory workers, food vendors and other informal sector jobs in Yangon. Resettlement to the township has increased their vulnerability. Essential infrastructure in these townships like water supplies and sanitation works are poorly developed, and during the monsoon rains large parts of the township are flooded. Basic health care in Hlaingthayar is poorly developed and is characterised by chronic shortages of staff, drugs and medical materials. The main health problems include high maternal mortality, high childhood morbidity and mortality and high incidence of STD/HIV and epidemic diseases (cholera and Dengue). Nutrition surveys carried out by MSF in 1992, 1993 and 1996 in the township revealed consistently high levels of both acute and chronic malnutrition amongst children under five years of age.
MSF began implementing an urban health
care programme in Hliangthayar in 1993. The programme focuses on women
and young children and includes the running of independent MCH clinics,
feeding centres, community outreach programmes, AIDS/HIV awareness
programmes, water and sanitation initiatives, and supplying essential drugs
to public (government) health facilities.
At the start of MSF's programme, Outreach
workers (ORWs) conducted screening during their home
visits, referring children with a Mid Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) less
than 135mm to the feeding centre for a weight for height assessment. At
the feeding centre children with a 'weight for height' < 75% of the
median in the reference population1 were admitted. The admission criterium
of 75% W/H was chosen for pragmatic programme capacity as well as 'economy
of scale' reasons. The feeding programme did not have the capacity to admit
both severely (<70% W/H) as well as moderately malnourished children
(70-79% W/H). However, on
the other hand, only admitting severely malnourished would lead to feeding centres with only very limited case loads (20-30 children per feeding centre). For efficiency reasons children between 70 and 74% W/H were also admitted as a risk group "to fill up" the capacity of the feeding centres.
Although this MUAC screening had a sensitivity2 of some 85% the positive predictive value3 was very poor. Only 5% of children with a MUAC <135 had a weight-for-height <75% of the median. Therefore most mothers and children referred to the feeding centre for weight for height check ups were sent home again. This wasted a lot of time for mothers, undermined credibility of the programme and led to loss of motivation amongst the ORWs. At the time it was also felt that while using a stricter MUAC screening cut-off would improve the positive predictive value, it would also significantly reduce sensitivity, leading to a situation where a high proportion of truly malnourished children would be missed. As a result, MSF decided to let ORWs conduct weight-for-height measurements of all children under five during their home visits in Hlaingthayar so that they could refer malnourished children to therapeutic feeding programmes.
Currently all children under 75%
weight for height are admitted to the feeding centres. Roughly 3,900
children are screened every month, of whom 20-30 are referred to the feeding
centre (0.5-0.8%). As it takes on average 7.5 minutes per child to do a
weight for height measurement, the total time spent by ORWs each month
on nutritional screening to detect 20-30 cases amounts to almost 500 hours.
In order to increase the efficiency of the screening, MSF has recently
been considering reverting to MUAC measurements as a first screening tool,
so that more time could be made available for the ORWs to undertake other
priority tasks, e.g. health education.
Objective and Method
The task faced by MSF was to select
the most appropriate MUAC cut-off point for initial (first stage) screening
of children under five, so as to reduce the number of unnecessary weight
and height measurements. This required analysis and calculation of
the sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value of different
MUAC cut-off points, in identifying children less than 75% weight for height
for admission to therapeutic feeding. However, as comprehensive
MUAC data for the Hlang Thayar population were not available, nutrition
survey databases from other populations with a similar global prevalence
of malnutrition were used. These data were from Rohinga refugees in Bangladesh
between 1992-3 and the urban population n Malange, Angola in 1994.
|Table 1.Comparison of prevalence using weight for height cut-offs from nutrition survey databases. Survey Database|
|global malnutrition rate
(W/H <-2 Zsc)
|severe malnutrition rate
(W/H <-3 Zsc)
(W/H <75% Med.)
|MUAC < 135 mm||
|MUAC < 130 mm||
|Table 2. Sensitivity specificity and positive predictive value analysis|
(W/H <75% Med.)
|Positive predictive value||
Analysis of the data
In multiple database analyses there was a limited correlation between MUAC and weight-for-height (r=0.6) and a generally poor positive predictive value of MUAC cut-off points of 135 and 130 mm in identifying children < 75% weight for height (see table2). This confirmed that MUAC on its own was an inappropriate screening tool and would need to be used in combination with weight for height measurements. However, the data also showed that MUAC cut-offs of 130 and 135 mm may be considered sufficiently sensitive to identify children under 75% weight for height, but that the specificity of a MUAC cut-off of <130 mm is significantly higher than a MUAC of <135 mm. Although the positive predictive value of a MUAC cut-off of 130 and 135 mm for a weight for height of <75% remains poor, considerable efficiency gains can be made by using MUAC as a first screening stage. The total time saved on the whole screening procedure can amount to 65% using a 130 mm cut off and 52% using a 135 mm cut off. The number of false negatives by MUAC screening (children with a weight for height <75% but not selected by MUAC screening) remains acceptable. Of the 20-30 children currently referred each month using weight for height screening, an estimated 3-5 children (17%) would be missed each month when using a MUAC of < 130 mm. Further analysis shows that these false negatives do not include severely malnourished children (weight for height < 70%) but rather "borderline" cases with a weight for height between 72-75%.
|Table 3 Cost-efficiency comparison of different nutritional screening strategies (estimations, based on extrapolation of average approximations|
(3900 children per month)
Total monthly time sent on screening
|Time saved||Children missed (false negatives by MUAC)|
|1. W/H screening of all children (=3900 children)||0hrs||488 hrs||488hrs||0||0|
|2. MUAC of all children + W/H screening of children of children with MUAC <135mm (3900x0.35=1365 children)||65hrs||171hrs||236hrs||52%||10%|
|3. MUAC of all children + W/H screening of children with MUAC <130mm (3900x0.22=860 children)||65hrs||107hrs||172hrs||65%||17%|
Our final recommendation has been to revert to a two-stage nutritional screening strategy involving;
1. MUAC screening of all children
2. Weight for height screening of all children with a MUAC <130 mm.
1For explanation of terms see 'Z-scores' article in Field Exchange Issue I
2The term sensitivity means the ability of the indicator (in this case a MUAC of < than 135 mm) to identify correctly children less than 75% weight for height. In other words a sensitivity of 85% means that 85% of children with a weight for height less than 75% would also have a MUAC of less than 135 mm.
3The positive predictive value of the MUAC screening test is the true positives as a percentage of all those tested positive by the screening method., i.e. those with weight-for-height < 75% as a percentage of all children tested with a MUAC < 135mm
More like this
By Michel Van Herp, An Verwulgen, Bérengère Leurquin, and Pascale Delchevalerie Michael Ven Herp, Bérengère Leurquin, An Verwulgen & Pascale Delchevalerie Michael Ven Herp is...
en-net: Is it valid to use similar cut-off points for prevalence of wasting using z scores for different countries and contexts?
Hi there, II faced this situation and want to to hear your ideas. We have a programme running for long, but the GAM rates during the hunger gap based on WHO standards 2006 is...
en-net: MUAC cut offs for 6 - 10 years
I am doing malnutrition assessment of children aged 5-10 years in Kenya. Using MUAC should we use cut off points for adults, as I have not been able to get cut off points...
en-net: MUAC cutoff to screen SAM
Looking at the WHO growth standard for MUAC, one can understand the change of MUAC with age. So my concern is, is it feasible to use the same MUAC cutoff (<11.5CM) for all...
en-net: WFH versus MUAC
I would like experts input in this regard. I wish Mark Myatt to be one of the respondent of my question. Much has been said about the discrepancy of MUAC and WFH in some...
Just a quick question ... We now use MUAC for admission into TFP. Some use it for admission into SFP. A recent meeting in Geneva proposed that SFP admission criteria be based...
en-net: MUAC cut off point
What things should be mentioned in deciding MUAC cut off point ? what data are need? I want to know the admission criteria and discharge criteria for severe and moderate acute...
Dear Field Exchange A need for quality control, consistency and diligence for articles published in Field Exchange. As an experienced practitioner and trainer in refugee...
I have started this thread in the hope that we can come together there to work out what we need to do to move forward with an informed debate on issues around MUAC-only...
By Maartje Hoetjes, Wendy Rhymer, Lea Matasci-Phelippeau, Saskia van der Kam Maartje Hoetjes is a Medical member of the MSF emergency team, currently working in South Sudan....
What is the most appropriete practical decision should one make when confronted with cases of borderline MUACs and Z-scores of 11.5cm and -2 SD respectively in nutrition...
Can one use the same thresholds for SAM/MAM prevalence when using MUAC as the basis for measurement? For example can one equally use less than 15% GAM prevalence to classify...
I am just wondering if, in view of recently published research looking at the association between weight-for-height and body shape, and MUAC and body shape (Myatt et al Jan...
how reliable is muac in identifying early cases of malnutrition especially in children above 3 years who use the same cutoffs as younger children Yes. You will need to do this...
Since 2008, we have been screening and admitting children to outpatient therapeutic program using MUAC 11.0; in June 2009 we adopted MUAC- 11.5 as per the new WHO guidelines....
Dear ENN experts, I would like to compare wasting using MUAC, WFH and BMI-for-age ? What should i use as the Gold standard in assessing specificty and...
By Bernardette Cichon Bernardette is a Public Health Nutritionist who at the time of the work described in this article, worked with Action Contre la Faim (ACF). She is...
en-net: MUAC in SMART / ENA
This is the latest advice from the WHO and UNICEF: "To improve planning, it is therefore vital that the same criteria are used for estimating caseload as are being used for...
I would like to collect some data around maternal nutrtition status in order to build the case for emphasising project components which address this issue. There is good...
FEX: Evaluation of the Supplementary Feeding Programme carried out in Marsabit District, Kenya, April-November 1997
Vincent Brown (Epicentre), Sylvia Carbonell (Médecins Sans Frontières) MSF implemented a nutrition rehabilitation programme in Marsabit District between April...
Reference this page
Koert Ritmeijer (). Finding the right MUAC cut-off to improve screening efficiency. Field Exchange 4, June 1998. p23. www.ennonline.net/fex/4/finding