Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: Ann Emerg Med. 2013 Apr 17;62(4):332–339.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2013.02.021

Table 2.

Performance of the 2D-TAPE, 3D-TAPE and Broselow tape in eligible children by BMI percentile subgroup.

BMI percentile group no. eligible (% of total)a mean error (kg) mean percent error (%) % w/in 10% % w/in 20%
2D-TAPE infant 72 0.2 3.9 59.7 93.1
underweight 28 1.2 4.9 78.6 96.4
normal 355 0.3 1.2 78.9 99.2
overweight 89 0.7 4.8 80.9 100
obese 80 −0.6 −0.4 75 96.3
3D-TAPE infant 72 0.6 8.1 50 87.5
underweight 28 0.5 2.9 64.3 96.4
normal 355 0.2 0.9 67.6 94.1
overweight 89 0.7 2.6 73 96.6
obese 80 −0.6 −0.5 58.8 90
Broselow infant 72 −0.2 −1.8 63.9 93.1
underweight 21 (75) 3.7 17.8 23.8 76.2
normal 242 (68) −0.5 −1.7 77.7 99.6
overweight 49 (55) −4.6 −15.2 8.2 85.7
obese 31 (39) −8.8 −25.6 0.0 35.5

Infant: < 2 yr, underweight: <5th percentile, normal: 5th to 85th percentile, overweight: 85th to 95th percentile, obese: ≥ 95th percentile.

a

100% of enrolled children in each subgroup were eligible unless otherwise specified