Use of anthropometric indicators for predicting risk of delivering low birth weight babies

Abstract

DOI: 10.3329/bmrcb.v34i2.1178Bangladesh Med Res Counc Bull 2008; 34: 64-66

Maternal MUAC and fetal outcome in an Indian tertiary care hospital: A prospective observational study

“…Six longitudinal studies that measured MUAC during antenatal visits also reported MUAC as predictor of LBW in pregnant women, similar to the current study. All the six found significantly increased risk of LBW among mothers with low MUAC during pregnancy (Frison et al, 2016;Sebayang et al, 2012;Assefa, Berhane, & Worku, 2012;Mohanty et al, 2005;Kelly et al, 1996;Karim & Mascie-Taylor, 1997 (Dhar & Bhadra, 2008;Elshibly & Schmalisch, 2008;Sebayang et al, 2012). LBW or SGA babies are not only at greater risk of dying than infants of average weight but also at risk of more frequent infections and impaired cognitive development and are more likely to become undernourished children and adolescents (Saugstad, 1981).…”

“…Although recognized earlier, the importance of MUAC in predicting BW was first published by Lechtig () in a study comparing MUAC and other conventional high‐risk anthropometric indicators during pregnancy for LBW assessment in Guatemala. Being simple and cost‐effective, MUAC was rapidly promoted as an indicator for risk of LBW baby by many longitudinal and cross‐sectional studies (Dhar & Bhadra, ; Elshibly & Schmalisch, ; Sebayang et al, ). LBW or SGA babies are not only at greater risk of dying than infants of average weight but also at risk of more frequent infections and impaired cognitive development and are more likely to become undernourished children and adolescents (Saugstad, ).…”

“…The MUAC value of ≤23 cm is recommended to include pregnant women at risk of LBW for infants in the Asian contexts (Ververs et al, 2013). The WHO Collaborative Study in1997 (Kelly, Kevany, De Onis, & Shah, 1996) There are eight cross-sectional studies (measured MUAC at the time of labour or postpartum) that analysed maternal MUAC and LBW outcome, of which six studies showed positive association between MUAC and LBW, whereas two studies did not show any correlation (Elshibly & Schmalisch, 2008;Villamor et al, 2002;Ojha & Malla, 2007;Dhar & Bhadra, 2008;Shrivastava et al, 2016;Ricalde et al, 1998;López et al, 2011). Six longitudinal studies that measured MUAC during antenatal visits also reported MUAC as predictor of LBW in pregnant women, similar to the current study.…”

“…MUAC of <22 cm has been suggested as an indicator of wasting, but MUAC cut‐off points to predict LBW are suggested to be different for different regions (Villamor et al, ). Yet most studies have measured MUAC just before or after delivery; data on changes in MUAC values during pregnancy are limited (Tang et al, ; Ojha & Malla, ; Dhar & Bhadra, ; Sebayang et al, ; Assefa et al, ; Shrivastava, Agrawal, & Giri, ; Mohanty et al, ; Ricalde, Velásquez‐Meléndez, Tanaka, & de Siqueira, ; López, Calvo, Poy, del Valle Balmaceda, & Cámera, ). Ricalde et al collected three serial measurements on 92 pregnant women in Brazil, and Lopez et al determined pattern of changes in MUAC, triceps, biceps, and subscapular skinfold thicknesses during the course of pregnancy.…”

Maternal mid‐upper arm circumference during pregnancy and linear growth among Cambodian infants during the first months of life

“…Frequently monitoring of MUAC of pregnant women could serve as a simple proxy indicator for identifying infants at risk of growth faltering and stunting. Compared with body mass index, MUAC is a better measurement to determine nutritional status during pregnancy (Dhar & Bhadra, 2008;Elshibly & Schmalisch, 2008;Ogbonna et al, 2007;Sebayang, Dibley, Kelly, Shankar, & Shankar, 2012;Sen, Roy, & Mondal, 2010). Furthermore, MUAC is an easy method to use and does not require sophisticated equipment.…”