Pediatric weight estimation: Validation of the PAWPER XL tape and the PAWPER XL tape mid-arm circumference method in a South African hospital

5Citations
Citations of this article
15Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective The primary aim of this study was to prospectively compare the performance of the Broselow tape, Mercy method, pediatric advanced weight prediction in the emergency room extra-long (PAWPER XL) tape, and PAWPER XL mid-arm circumference (MAC) method in estimating the weight of children from a low-income setting. The secondary aim was to analyze the time taken to perform each method. Methods This analyzed a convenience study sample of 300 children aged 0 to 18 years at the Baragwanath Hospital in South Africa. Weight estimations were obtained using each of the weight estimation systems on each child. These weight estimations were then compared against the actual weight to determine bias, precision, and accuracy of the estimation methods. Results The PAWPER XL tape and PAWPER XL-MAC methods performed the best and provided estimated weights within 10% of the actual weight in 62.7% and 67.3% of cases, respectively, followed by the Mercy method (56.5%) and Broselow tape (43.9%). The use of MAC improved the accuracy of estimation, especially in heavier and taller children. The median times taken to perform measurements using the Broselow tape, Mercy method, PAWPER XL tape, and PAWPER XL-MAC method were 11.3 seconds, 34.7 seconds, 9.3 seconds, and 33.9 seconds respectively. Conclusion The PAWPER XL tape and PAWPER XL-MAC methods were the most accurate methods of estimating weight in this group of children. These methods may be considered in preference to the Broselow tape or the Mercy method for emergency weight estimation in low socioeconomic status populations.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wu, M. T., & Wells, M. (2020). Pediatric weight estimation: Validation of the PAWPER XL tape and the PAWPER XL tape mid-arm circumference method in a South African hospital. Clinical and Experimental Emergency Medicine, 7(4), 290–301. https://doi.org/10.15441/ceem.19.082

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free