Table 1.
Selected example studies comparing MUAC and BMI
| Study | Country(s) | BMI value used to classify thinness (kg/m2) | Selected MUAC cut-off in men (cm) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sultana et al. (11) | Bangladesh | <18·5 | <25·1 |
| James(18) | China, India, Papua New Guinea, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Mali, Somalia, Senegal | ≥ 18·5 | >24·3 |
| 17–18·4 | 23·1–24·3 | ||
| 16–16·9 | 22·3–23·1 | ||
| <16·0 | <22·3 | ||
| Ferro-Luzzi(10) | China, India, Papua New Guinea, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Mali, Somalia, Senegal | <17 | <23·0 |
| <13 | <20·0 | ||
| <10 | <17·0 | ||
| Benitez Brito et al. (15) | Tenerife | <18·5 | <22·5 (both genders) |
| Collins(3) | South Sudan | <16 | <22·5 |
| Tang et al. (4) | Argentina, Guinea-Bissau, india, Malawi, Namibia, South Africa, USA, Vietnam, Zambia | <18·5 | ≤24·0 (both genders) |
| Van Tonder(8) | South Africa – hospitalised patients | <16·0 | <23·0 |
| <18·5 | <24·0 |
MUAC, mid-upper arm circumference.