Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 May 8;15(5):e0232838. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232838

Factors associated with mortality in children under five years old hospitalized for Severe Acute Malnutrition in Limpopo province, South Africa, 2014-2018: A cross-sectional analytic study

Fhatuwani Gavhi 1,2,*, Lazarus Kuonza 1,2,3, Alfred Musekiwa 2, Nkengafac Villyen Motaze 1,4
Editor: Calistus Wilunda5
PMCID: PMC7209205  PMID: 32384106

Abstract

Background

In South Africa, 30.9% of children under five years with Severe Acute Malnutrition (SAM) died in 2018. We aimed to identify factors associated with mortality among children under five years hospitalized with SAM in Limpopo province, South Africa.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study including children under five years admitted with SAM from 2014 to 2018 in public hospitals of Limpopo province. We extracted socio-demographic and clinical data from hospital records. We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with mortality.

Findings

We included 956 children, 50.2% (480/956) male and 49.8% (476/956) female. The median age was 13 months (inter quartile range: 9–19 months). The overall SAM mortality over the study period was 25.9% (248/956). The most common complications were diarrhea, 63.8% (610/956), and lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs), 42.4% (405/956). Factors associated with mortality included herbal medication use (adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR): 2.2, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.4–3.5, p = 0.001), poor appetite (aOR: 2.7, 95% CI: 1.4–5.2, p = 0.003), Mid-upper circumference (MUAC) <11.5 cm (aOR: 3.0, 95% CI: 1.9–4.7, p<0.001), lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) (aOR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.2–2.0, p<0.001), anemia (aOR: 2.5, 95% CI: 1.1–5.3, p = 0.021), hypoglycemia (aOR: 12.4, 95% CI: 7.1–21.8, p<0.001) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection (aOR: 2.3, 95% CI: 1.6–3.3, p<0.001).

Interpretation

Herbal medication use, poor appetite, LRTIs, anemia, hypoglycemia, and HIV infection were associated with mortality among children with SAM. These factors should guide management of children with SAM.

Introduction

Severe Acute Malnutrition (SAM) is defined as a weight for height below -3 Z-scores of the median World Health Organization (WHO) growth standards, or visible severe wasting, or the presence of bilateral pitting edema in children under five years old [1]. A Mid-Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) <11.5 cm is also indicative of SAM in children 6–59 months of age [1]. SAM is a life threatening condition, and has been associated with poverty, inadequate nutrient intake, lack of access to adequate health services, and concurrent diseases [1, 2]. Children with SAM have weakened immune system, are more susceptible to diseases and have an increased risk of mortality [3, 4].

SAM is an important public health problem and a major contributor to morbidity and mortality among children under five years worldwide [5]. Joint global estimates from the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), WHO, and the World Bank revealed that nearly 17 million children under five years old had SAM in 2018, with 4.4 million from Sub-Saharan Africa [5]. This report shows insufficient progress towards the 2025 targets of the World Health Assembly [6] and Sustainable Development Goal number three, addressing preventable deaths among children under five years [7].

Children with SAM require urgent treatment to prevent death since their weakened immune system makes them nine times more likely to die compared to their well-nourished counterparts [2, 3]. It is estimated that approximately one million children under five years with SAM die every year globally [2, 5]. The WHO developed guidelines for the management of SAM with the aim of preventing mortality. These management guidelines are currently the gold standard for managing SAM in hospitals. The guidelines recommend a ten-step protocol with three distinct phases; stabilization, rehabilitation, and discharge and follow-up [1]. With proper adherence to these guidelines, SAM mortality can be reduced to less than 10% in hospitalized children [1].

Despite proper adherence to the SAM management guidelines reported in certain studies in low- and middle-income countries, including South Africa, [810] mortality rates in Sub-Saharan Africa still surpass 40% among children under five years hospitalized with SAM [11, 12]. Mortality rates among children hospitalized with SAM were as high as 40.1% in Swaziland [11] and 46% in Zambia [12]. This demonstrates a gap in terms of implementing WHO SAM management standards. A number of studies conducted in Sub-Saharan Africa have identified contributors to high inpatient mortality among children with SAM; late presentations of cases at health facilities, inappropriate case management, co-morbidities such as Tuberculosis (TB), Human Immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, and complications such as diarrhoea anemia, hypoglycemia and lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) [1316].

The District Health Barometer reported that 11 229 children under five years were treated for SAM from April 2017 to March 2018 in South Africa [17]. During this period, SAM was an underlying cause of mortality in 30.9% of deaths among children under five years in South Africa [17]. An earlier report suggested that approximately 33% of deaths from 2011 to 2013 among children under five years in South Africa was associated with SAM [18]. In addition, a study conducted in two rural hospitals of Eastern Cape province among children hospitalized for SAM reported mortality in 24.4% of cases, which is much higher than the WHO acceptable standard (<10%) [19]. These high mortality figures suggest possible unexplored factors that contribute to mortality among children with SAM. While studies on the causes of SAM [20] and implementation of WHO SAM management guidelines [8, 10, 21] have been conducted in South Africa, few have examined factors for mortality. This study aimed to determine factors associated with mortality in children under five years hospitalized for SAM in public hospitals of Limpopo province.

Materials and methods

Study design and setting

We conducted a cross-sectional analytic study using hospital records of children under five years who were admitted with SAM in public hospitals of Limpopo province from 2014 to 2018. Limpopo province is situated in the northern-eastern part of South Africa with a population of 5,797,275 million [22]. Limpopo is the fifth most populated province in the country following Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Eastern Cape, and Western Cape provinces [22]. Limpopo is divided into five health districts; Capricorn, Sekhukhune, Mopani, Vhembe, and Waterberg. We used a convenience sampling method and selected Sekhukhune and Waterberg districts for the study. We included seven hospitals, three regional hospitals and four district hospitals.

Study size and sampling

We included all children under five years old admitted with SAM from 2014 to 2018 at the study sites and excluded children with missing hospital records.

Operational definitions

Mortality: Any child under five years old admitted with SAM who died following admission to hospital.

Adequate feeding: Exclusive breastfeeding or exclusive formula feeding children aged 0 to 6 months. For children aged 7 to 59 months, breast milk or formula milk with additional food items.

Inadequate feeding: For children aged 0 to 6 months, breastfeeding or formula feeding with any additional food items or solid feeds only. For children aged 7 to 24 months, breastfeeding or formula feeding only, or solid feeds only. For children aged 25 to 59 months, complementary feeds that do not include a variety of food items to cover the child’s nutritional needs.

Co-morbidity: Occurrence of one or more medical conditions prior to the diagnosis of SAM in an individual.

Complications of SAM: Any medical condition occurring in a child with SAM.

Measurements

We reviewed the admission registers in the pediatric ward to identify children under five years admitted with SAM and identified their medical records using hospital numbers. We extracted information on outcome and exposure variables of interest from hospital records using a pre-designed data capture form. We further extracted information on treatment received and patient outcomes. We audited completeness and clarity of information on the data capture form at the end of each day to ensure accuracy of information.

Variables

Our outcome variable of interest was mortality amongst children admitted with SAM. Our exposure variables included socio-demographics and clinical data. Socio-demographic characteristics included age and sex of the children as well as age, sex, employment status and education level of the caregiver(s). Clinical data included appetite test results, immunization status, feeding practices and herbal medication use. We also extracted data on the previous admissions if applicable. We further extracted data on clinical examination; Z-scores, MUAC and edema. Where information on Z-scores was not available, we plotted growth charts using values for weight and height obtained from patient records. We also extracted information on co-morbidities, complications and treatment received (antibiotics, vitamin A supplements, rehydration solution, oxygen therapy, and feeding type).

Data management and analysis

We used Microsoft Excel (2016) for data capture and cleaning. We imported the dataset into Stata (Version 15. StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX, United State of America, 2017) for analysis. We used descriptive statistics for socio-demographic and clinical characteristics. We presented numerical data using median, inter quartile range (IQR), mean and standard deviations (SD). We presented categorical variables using absolute numbers and percentages. We used frequency tables and bar charts to display data visually. We calculated SAM mortality as the total number of SAM deaths divided by the total number of children admitted with SAM. We represented trends in mortality over time using line graphs. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis to assess factors associated with mortality. We used a p-value of 0.2 as a cut-off value for inclusion in the multivariable logistic regression model. We used stepwise logistic regression approach and all variables that remained statistically significant at a cut-off p-value of 0.05 were included in the final model. We conducted multiple imputation by chained equations to account for missing data on appetite test and measurements of MUAC. We created 50 imputation data sets. We used robust standard errors in our final model to account for correlation within clusters (hospitals). We reported adjusted odds ratios (aORs) from the final model with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.

Ethical considerations

The study was approved by the Faculty of Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee of the University of Pretoria (Ethic No 551/2018). The research ethics committee also waived the informed consent of the caregivers of the children who were included in the study (S1 File). We obtained approvals from the management of each included health facility.

Results

A total of 1424 children were admitted with SAM from 2014 to 2018 in the selected hospitals (Fig 1). We excluded 32.9% (468/1424) children due to missing of hospital records. Therefore, 67.1% (956/1424) children were included in the study.

Fig 1. Study flow diagram for sample selection in the two included districts, Limpopo province, 2014–2018.

Fig 1

Socio-demographic characteristics of children with SAM

The median age was 13 months (IQR: 9–19 months) and 73.8% (706/956) of the children were aged between seven and 24 months (Table 1). Just over half (50.2%) of the children were males and the majority (99.3%) of caregivers were females. Data on the ages of caregivers were available for 1.0% (10/956) of cases. The median age of the caregivers was 30 years (IQR: 25–33 years). We did not find data on the level of education and employment status of the caregivers.

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of children under five years admitted with SAM at the study sites, 2014–2018.

Variable (N = 956) Categories n (%)
Age of children (Months) Median age (IQR) 13 (9–19)
0–6 120 (12.6)
7–24 706 (73.8)
25–59 130 (13.6)
Sex of children Female 476 (49.8)
Male 480 (50.2)
Sex of caregivers Female 949 (99.3)
Male 7 (0.7)

IQR = Inter-quartile range

Clinical characteristics of children with SAM

The majority of the children (84.6%) were admitted with SAM for the first time (Table 2). The mean MUAC was 11.3 cm (SD = 1.4) and 57.6% (551/956) of the children had Z-scores below -3 of the median WHO growth standards. About 68.4% (654/956) of the children had poor appetite and 61.5% (588/956) had non-edematous SAM on admission. About 62.1% (594/956) of the children were up to date with their immunization schedule and 17.6% (168/956) had a history of using herbal medicines. About 37.5% (45/120) of children, aged 0 to 6 months had adequate feeds before admission.

Table 2. Clinical characteristics of children under five years admitted with SAM at the study sites, 2014–2018.

Variable (N = 956) Categories n (%)
Admission type New 809 (84.6)
Readmission 147 (15.4)
MUAC (cm) Mean MUAC (SD) 11.3 (1.4)
≥11.5 278 (29.1)
<11.5 483 (50.5)
Unknown 195 (20.4)
Weight for length Z-Scores ≥ -3 307 (32.1)
<-3 551 (57.6)
Unknown 98 (10.3)
Appetite test Good 209 (21.9)
Poor 654 (68.4)
Unknown 93 (9.7)
Oedema Non-oedematous 588 (61.5)
Oedematous 368 (38.5)
Immunization status Up to date 594 (62.1)
Not up to date 281 (29.4)
Unknown 81 (8.5)
History of herbal medication use Yes 168 (17.6)
No 788 (82.4)
Feeding history
0 to 6 months (n = 120) Adequate feeding 45 (37.5)
Inadequate feeding 69 (57.5)
Unknown 6 (5.0)
7 to 24 months (n = 706) Adequate feeding 54 (7.6)
Inadequate feeding 523 (74.1)
Unknown 129 (18.3)
25 to 59 months (n = 130) Adequate feeding 81 (62.3)
Inadequate feeding 23 (17.7)
Unknown 26 (20.0)

Unknown refers to the data that were not available on the records. MUAC = Mid-Upper Arm Circumference. SD = Standard Deviation

Co-morbidities and complications of SAM

The attending clinicians made diagnoses of co-morbidities and complications of SAM during hospitalization. About 18.9% (181/956) of the children were HIV infected (Table 3). We did not collect data on receipt of antiretroviral treatment for HIV infected children. Diarrhoea and LRTIs were the most common complications occurring in 63.8% (610/956) and 42.4% (405/956) of cases respectively.

Table 3. Co-morbidities and complications in children under five years admitted with SAM, at the study sites, 2014–2018.

Characteristics (N = 956) Categories n (%)
Co-morbidities
HIV infection Infected 181 (18.9)
Not infected 775 (81.1)
TB Infected 127 (13.3)
Not infected 829 (86.7)
Complications
Malaria No 952 (99.6)
Yes 4 (0.4)
Diarrhoea No 346 (36.2)
Yes 610 (63.8)
Anaemia No 783 (81.9)
Yes 173 (18.1)
Hypoglycaemia No 860 (90.0)
Yes 96 (10.0)
LRTIs No 551 (57.6)
Yes 405 (42.4)

TB = Tuberculosis. HIV = Human Immunodeficiency Virus. LRTIs = Lower respiratory tract infections

Treatment received during admission

Antibiotics and rehydration therapy were administered to 85% (813/956) and 80.8% (772/956) of cases respectively (Table 4). Vitamin A supplementation was given to 64.6% (618/956) of cases and 14.4% (138/956) were fed using naso-gastric tubes.

Table 4. Treatment given to children under five years admitted with SAM at the study sites, 2014–2018.

Characteristics (N = 956) Categories n (%)
Antibiotics use Yes 813 (85.0)
Unknown 143 (15.0)
Rehydration therapy Yes 772 (80.8)
Unknown 184 (19.3)
Vitamin A supplementation Yes 618 (64.6)
Unknown 338 (35.4)
Feeding type Oral 818 (85.6)
Naso-gastric tube 138 (14.4)
Oxygen therapy Yes 229 (24.0)
No 727 (76.1)

Unknown refers to the data that were not available on the records

Admission outcomes

Of 956 children admitted with SAM from 2014 to 2018, 25.9% (248/956) died with 14.1% (35/248) of deaths occurring on the day of admission. About 74.1% (708/956) were alive on discharge and the median length of hospital stay was eight days (IQR: 5 to 14 days). The number of children admitted with SAM over the study period showed little variation (Fig 2). Apart from a slight increase between 2015 and 2016, mortality declined from 32.7% in 2014 to 18.8% in 2018. None of the children admitted at the study sites was transferred to other hospitals.

Fig 2. Trends of SAM mortality in children under five years by year and number of admission at the study sites, 2014–2018.

Fig 2

Factors associated with SAM mortality

After adjusting for other variables, the odds of dying in children with MUAC <11.5 cm were three times higher compared to those who had a MUAC ≥11.5 cm (95% CI 1.9–4.7, p<0.001) (Table 5). Using herbal medicine and having poor appetite on admission increased the odds of dying by more than two fold (95% CI 1.4–3.5, p = 0.001) and (95% CI 1.4–5.2, p = 0.003) respectively. Children who had LRTIs had 1.6 times higher odds of dying compared to those who did not have LRTIs (95% CI 1.3–2.0, p<0.001). Children with anemia had 2.5 (95% CI 1.1–5.3, p = 0.021) greater odds of mortality while those with hypoglycemia had12.5 (95% CI 7.1–21.8, p<0.001) odds of dying compared to those who did not have these conditions. In addition, HIV positivity increased the odds of mortality by 2.3 times (95% CI 1.6–3.3, p = 0.016).

Table 5. Logistic regression analysis of factors associated with SAM mortality in children under five years at the study sites, 2014–2018.

Variable SAM mortality n/N (%) Univariable analysis Multivariable analysis
OR (95% CI) *P-value aOR (95% CI) P- value
Age (months)
25–60 31/130 (23.9) Reference -
0–6 41/120 (34.2) 1.7 (0.9–3.0) 0.101
7–24 176/706 (24.9) 1.1(0.6–1.7) 0.819
Sex of children
Male 122/480 (25.4) Reference -
Female 126/476 (26.5) 1.1(0.8–1.4) 0.678
Admission type
New 199/809 (24.6) Reference -
Readmission 49/147 (33.3) 1.5 (0.9–2.5) 0.091
Oedema
Non-Oedematous 144/588 (24.5) Reference -
Oedematous 104/368 (28.3) 1.2(1.0–1.4) 0.033
MUAC (cm)
≥11.5 34/278 (12.3) Reference - -
<11.5 165/483 (34.2) 3.7(2.1–6.6) <0.001 3.0(1.9–4.7) <0.001
Weight for length Z-Scores (SD)
0 to -3 54/307 (17.6) Reference -
<-3 154/551 (27.9) 1.8(1.1–2.9) 0.013
Appetite
Good 20/209 (9.6) Reference -
Poor 188/654 (28.8) 3.8(1.9–7.6) <0.001 2.7(1.4–5.2) 0.003
Immunization status
Up to date 133/594 (22.4) Reference
Not Up to date 77/281 (27.4) 1.3(0.9–1.8) 0.075
Feeding history
Adequate 40/180 (22.2) Reference
Inadequate 149/615 (24.2) 1.1(0.6–1.9) 0.701
History of herbal medication use
No 170/788 (21.6) Reference - - -
Yes 78/168 (46.4) 3.2(2.1–4.8) <0.001 2.2(1.4–3.5) 0.001
Diarrhoea
No 76/346 (21.9) Reference - - -
Yes 172/610 (28.2) 1.4(1.1–1.7) 0.001
LRTIs
No 123/551 (22.3) Reference -
Yes 125/405 (30.9) 1.6(1.1–2.2) 0.014 1.6(1.3–2.0) <0.001
Anaemia
No 165/783 (21.1) Reference - - -
Yes 83/173 (48.0) 3.5(1.9–6.2) <0.001 2.5(1.1–5.3) <0.021
Hypoglycaemia
No 171/860 (19.9) Reference - - -
Yes 77/96 (80.2) 16.3(8.6–31.1) <0.001 12.5(7.1–21.8) <0.001
TB
Not infected 199/829 (24) Reference -
Infected 49/127 (38.6) 1.9(1.1–3.6) 0.022
HIV infection
Not infected 171/775 (22.1) Reference - - -
Infected 77/181 (42.5) 2.6(1.9–3.5) <0.001 2.3(1.6–3.3) 0.016

OR = Odds ratio. aOR = Adjusted odds ratio. CI = confidence interval. MUAC = Mid Upper Arm Circumference. SD = Standard Deviation. LRTIs = Lower respiratory tract infections. TB = Tuberculosis. HIV = Human Immunodeficiency Virus. *P- value for univariable analysis. P-value for multivariable analysis. P- value significant at ≤0.05.

Discussion

Our study aimed to identify factors associated with mortality among children under five years admitted with SAM in public hospitals of Limpopo province. We found an overall mortality of 25.9% among children admitted with SAM. Factors associated with mortality included MUAC <11.5 cm, poor appetite on admission, history of herbal medication use, LRTIs, hypoglycemia and HIV infection.

We found that mortality among children with SAM in Limpopo was higher than the target outlined in the WHO SAM management guidelines (<10%) [1]. Mortality among children under five years with SAM in our study (25.9%) is comparable with figures reported in health facilities in rural Eastern Cape province (24.4%) [21]. This increased mortality could be due to delays in seeking treatment in the hospitals, leading to complications [21]. Nonetheless, mortality in our study was lower than figures reported in Zambia (46%) [12], Malawi (42%) [11] and Swaziland (40.1%) [23]. The observed differences between our findings could be due to differences in severity of cases, and frequency of co-morbidities [24, 25]. Mortality trends varied between 2014 and 2016; however, a gradual decline ensued from 2016 to 2018. Given the fairly consistent number of SAM admissions from 2014 to 2018 in our study, the decrease in SAM mortality from 2016 to 2018 is particularly encouraging. The observed pattern of mortality in our study is comparable to that reported by Bamford et al [20] and the District Health Barometer [17] in Limpopo province from 2014 to 2018. Variations in mortality over time were also observed in studies done in Ethiopia [13] and Zambia [12]. Numerous factors and interventions implemented in addition to WHO SAM management guidelines could explain the decline in mortality. These factors include; a decrease in HIV incidence and prevalence in young children following scaling up of prevention of mother-to-child transmission interventions, [17, 22] and improvements in key child health strategies such as immunization and exclusive breastfeeding [17, 26]. In addition, ward based outreach team members for assessment of SAM within the communities were established and trained from 2015 [27]. This might have resulted in early diagnosis and presentation of SAM cases in hospitals before they developed severe complications [28]. Munthali argued that the introduction of numerous interventions in addition to implementation of WHO SAM management guidelines have resulted in decreased mortality among children with SAM in Zambia [12].

Regarding predictors of mortality, history of using herbal medication, poor appetite on admission, MUAC <11.5 cm, LRTIs, anemia, hypoglycemia and HIV infection were associated with increased mortality. The use of herbal remedies in our study setting was consistent with findings of previous studies that reported caregivers administering herbal medicines to their children [29, 30]. Consultations with practitioners who administer herbal medicines may delay presentation of cases in health facilities, thereby increasing the risk of complications. Herbal medicines may also cause potential fatal complications such as diarrhoea, dehydration, liver and kidney impairments [31]. Management of liver and kidney impairment in children with SAM is not included in the WHO SAM management guidelines [1]. Treating children with SAM with complications that are not included on the management guidelines may be challenging to healthcare workers, and result in poor treatment outcomes. Our finding regarding the association between anemia and increased mortality in children with SAM reflect those of studies done in Sekota and Jimma Hospitals in Ethiopia [13, 25, 32]. Children with anemia have increased risk of infections and heart failure, which may lead to fatal outcomes. Concerning LRTIs, hypoglycaemia and HIV infection, our findings agree with retrospective cohort studies done in Zambia and Ethiopia [12, 16]. Children with hypoglycemia have increased risk of neurological damage [33] while HIV infected children are predisposed to opportunistic infections [4, 33]. Tuberculosis was not associated with increased mortality in our study. However, this association between TB and mortality in children with SAM varies between studies with some finding no association, [25] while others did find an association [24]. These differences might be due to variability in adherence to WHO SAM treatment guidelines and early TB diagnosis as well as the provision of prophylaxis. Other factors explored in our study were poor appetite and MUAC <11.5 cm. The associations of MUAC <11.5 cm and SAM mortality was also reported in studies done in India [34] and Guinea-Bissau [35].

Our study had some limitations. Firstly, we included records of children with SAM who died at the study sites. This approach does not account for community deaths so it is not clear if factors are common to both groups. Secondly, data on some important variables were missing in included records. We addressed possible bias caused by missing information through multiple imputation. Due to the fact that our study entailed extracting data from hospital records, we could only include records that were available at the hospitals which did not have electronic archives. However, we have no reason to think that the characteristics of children with missing records differed from those that we obtained. We can outline major strengths of the study. We conducted a multicenter study including regional and district public hospitals found in two districts of Limpopo province. As such, our findings could be generalized to children under five years old making use of public sector health facilities of Limpopo province.

Conclusions

Mortality among children with SAM was higher than the minimum standard of the WHO SAM management guidelines throughout the study period. History of using herbal medicines, lack of appetite, MUAC <11.5 cm, LRTIs, anemia, hypoglycemia and HIV infection were factors associated with increased mortality. These factors should inform management of children with SAM. There is a need to enhance community level interventions, targeted towards awareness of rational use of herbal medicines. Future studies assessing factors for mortality in children with SAM could be community-based to fill the knowledge gaps not addressed by our study.

Supporting information

S1 File. Ethical approval letter.

(PDF)

S1 Dataset. Manuscript data.

(XLSX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.World Health Organization. Updates on the management of severe acute malnutrition in infants and children. World Health Organization, 2013. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.United Nations Children's Fund. [Internet]: UNICEF data: Monitoring the situation of children and women. Available from: http://dataunicef org/child-protection/child-marriagehtml. (Accessed July 27, 2019).
  • 3.Bhutta ZA, Berkley JA, Bandsma RH, Kerac M, Trehan I, Briend A. Severe childhood malnutrition. Nature reviews Disease primers. 2017;3:17067 10.1038/nrdp.2017.67 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Attia S, Versloot CJ, Voskuijl W, van Vliet SJ, Di Giovanni V, Zhang L, et al. Mortality in children with complicated severe acute malnutrition is related to intestinal and systemic inflammation: an observational cohort study. The American journal of clinical nutrition. 2016;104(5):1441–9. 10.3945/ajcn.116.130518 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.UNICEF WHO. UNICEF, WHO: The World Bank Group Joint child malnutrition estimates—levels and trends in child malnutrition. World Health Organization, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Shekar M, Kakietek JJ, Dayton JM, Walters DD. An investment framework for nutrition: Reaching the global targets for stunting, anaemia, breastfeeding and wasting. Field Exchange 53. 2016:40. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Nilsson M, Griggs D, Visbeck M. Policy: map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals. Nature News. 2016;534(7607):320. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Anthony A. Assessment of clinical practices in children admitted with severe acute malnutrition in three District hospitals, in the Western Cape, South Africa. 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hossain M, Chisti MJ, Hossain MI, Mahfuz M, Islam MM, Ahmed T. Efficacy of World Health Organization guideline in facility‐based reduction of mortality in severely malnourished children from low and middle income countries: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Paediatr Child Health. 2017;53(5):474–9. 10.1111/jpc.13443 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Mambulu-Chikankheni FN, Eyles J, Eboreime EA, Ditlopo P. A critical appraisal of guidelines used for management of severe acute malnutrition in South Africa’s referral system. Health research policy and systems. 2017;15(1):90 10.1186/s12961-017-0255-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Benyera O, Hyera FL. Outcomes in malnourished children at a tertiary hospital in Swaziland after implementation of the World Health Organization treatment guidelines. South African Journal of Child Health. 2013;7(4):135–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Munthali T, Jacobs C, Sitali L, Dambe R, Michelo C. Mortality and morbidity patterns in under-five children with severe acute malnutrition (SAM) in Zambia: a five-year retrospective review of hospital-based records (2009–2013). Archives of Public Health. 2015;73(1):23 10.1186/s13690-015-0072-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Yohannes T, Laelago T, Ayele M, Tamrat T. Mortality and morbidity trends and predictors of mortality in under-five children with severe acute malnutrition in Hadiya zone, South Ethiopia: a four-year retrospective review of hospital-based records (2012–2015). BMC Nutrition. 2017;3(1):18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Wagnew F, Tesgera D, Mekonnen M, Abajobir AA. Predictors of mortality among under-five children with severe acute malnutrition, Northwest Ethiopia: an institution based retrospective cohort study. Archives of Public Health. 2018;76(1):64. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Tette EM, Nyarko MY, Nartey ET, Neizer ML, Egbefome A, Akosa F, et al. Under-five mortality pattern and associated risk factors: a case-control study at the Princess Marie Louise Children’s Hospital in Accra, Ghana. BMC Pediatr. 2016;16(1):148 10.1186/s12887-016-0682-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Desta K. Survival status and predictors of mortality among children aged 0–59 months with severe acute malnutrition admitted to stabilization center at Sekota Hospital Waghemra Zone. J Nutr Disord Ther. 2015;5:160. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Massyn N, Peer N, English R, Padarath A, Barron P, Day C. District Health Barometer 2017/18 Durban, South Africa: Health Systems Trust; 2018. 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Stephen C. Saving Children 2012–2013: An eighth survey of child healthcare in South Africa. Pretoria: Tshepesa Press; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Muzigaba M, Puoane T, Sartorius B, Sanders D. Independent and interactive effects of HIV infection, clinical stage and other comorbidities on survival of children treated for severe malnutrition in rural South Africa: A retrospective multicohort study. South African Journal of Child Health. 2017;11(1):46–53. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Bamford L, Barron P, Kauchali S, Dlamini N. Inpatient case fatality rates improvements in children under 5: Diarrhoeal disease, pneumonia and severe acute malnutrition. S Afr Med J. 2018;108(3):33–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Muzigaba M, Van Wyk B, Puoane T. Management of severe acute malnutrition in children under 5 years through the lens of health care workers in two rural South African hospitals. African journal of primary health care & family medicine. 2018;10(1):1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Statistic South Africa. [Internet]. South African Mid-year population estimates. 2018. 2019. Available from: https://www.statssa/Mid-year+population-estimates/2018.
  • 23.Acevedo P, Esteban MTG, Lopez-Ejeda N, Gómez A, Marrodán MD. Influence of malnutrition upon all-cause mortality among children in Swaziland. Endocrinologia, diabetes y nutricion. 2017;64(4):204–10. 10.1016/j.endinu.2017.01.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Munthali T, Chabala C, Chama E, Mugode R, Kapata N, Musonda P, et al. Tuberculosis caseload in children with severe acute malnutrition related with high hospital based mortality in Lusaka, Zambia. BMC Res Notes. 2017;10(1):206 10.1186/s13104-017-2529-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Girum T, Kote M, Tariku B, Bekele H. Survival status and predictors of mortality among severely acute malnourished children< 5 years of age admitted to stabilization centers in Gedeo Zone: a retrospective cohort study. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2017;13:101 10.2147/TCRM.S119826 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Chola L, Pillay Y, Barron P, Tugendhaft A, Kerber K, Hofman K. Cost and impact of scaling up interventions to save lives of mothers and children: taking South Africa closer to MDGs 4 and 5. Global health action. 2015;8(1):27265. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Limpopo Department of Health. Annual report. 2016.
  • 28.Nxumalo N, Choonra S. Ward-based community health worker outreach teams: The success of the Sedibeng Health Posts. Johannesburg; 2014.
  • 29.Dambisya Y, Tindimwebwa G. Traditional remedies in children around eastern cape, South Africa. East Afr Med J. 2003;80(8):402–5. 10.4314/eamj.v80i8.8730 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Mwambete KD, Joseph R. Knowledge and perception of mothers and caregivers on childhood diarrhoea and its management in Temeke municipality, Tanzania. Tanzania journal of health research. 2010;12(1):47–54. 10.4314/thrb.v12i1.56278 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Posadzki P, Watson LK, Ernst E. Adverse effects of herbal medicines: an overview of systematic reviews. Clin Med (Northfield Il). 2013;13(1):7–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Oumer A, Mesfin F, Demena M. Survival Status and Predictors of Mortality among Children Aged 0–59 Months Admitted with Severe Acute Malnutrition in Dilchora Referral Hospital, Eastern Ethiopia. East African Journal of Health and Biomedical Sciences. 2016;1(1):13–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Bwakura-Dangarembizi M, Amadi B, Bourke CD, Robertson RC, Mwapenya B, Chandwe K, et al. Health Outcomes, Pathogenesis and Epidemiology of Severe Acute Malnutrition (HOPE-SAM): rationale and methods of a longitudinal observational study. BMJ open. 2019;9(1):e023077 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023077 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Taneja S, Rongsen-Chandola T, Mohan SB, Mazumder S, Bhandari N, Kaur J, et al. Mid upper arm circumference as a predictor of risk of mortality in children in a low resource setting in India. PLoS One. 2018;13(6):e0197832 10.1371/journal.pone.0197832 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Rasmussen J, Andersen A, Fisker A, Ravn H, Sodemann M, Rodrigues A, et al. Mid-upper-arm-circumference and mid-upper-arm circumference z-score: the best predictor of mortality? Eur J Clin Nutr. 2012;66(9):998 10.1038/ejcn.2012.95 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Calistus Wilunda

8 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-31811

Risk factors associated with mortality in children under five years old hospitalized for Severe Acute Malnutrition in Limpopo province, South Africa, 2014-2018: A cross-sectional analytic study

PLOS ONE

Dear Ms. Gavhi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Feb 22 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Calistus Wilunda, DrPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. You indicated that you had ethical approval for your study. In your Methods section, please ensure you have also stated whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians of the minors included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB specifically waived the need for their consent.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Consider using “Factors associated with mortality…” instead of “Risk factors associated with mortality…” in the heading and elsewhere in the manuscript.

Consider using methods such as multiple imputation to account for missing data. This can be done as a sensitivity analysis.

Line 298: The conclusion about representativeness may not be true? Did you check for representativeness? Exclusion of children with missing hospital records and restriction of the study to children admitted in public hospitals could have affected representativeness.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I have read with interest this paper. It is a very interesting study done in the province of Limpopo in South Africa. This cross-sectional analytic study was able to research the risk factors for mortality in children under 5 years of age with severe acute malnutrition in whom the mortality rate was 25.9%. The risk factors found in this study have also been reported by other studies elsewhere.

We made some remarks:

Introduction section :

In your introduction, we note that you did not state a clear research question. Please could you include a statement regarding your research question in the introduction.

Materials and methods section :

It would be better to put references to these operational definitions.

Please cite co-morbidities and complications of SAM in this section.

Reviewer #2: The study by Gavhi, Kuonza, and Motaze describes risk factors for mortality in children aged under 5 years admitted with severe acute malnutrition (SAM). Participants were identified from admission registers of 7 participating hospitals followed by retrospective records review for variables of interest. Authors then performed logistic regression to identify risk factors for in-hospital mortality. Malnutrition remains a risk factor for both in-hospital and community mortality in children aged less than five year and case fatality from SAM remains high despite recommendations that have been there for about 2 decades. The topic is therefore of interest to scientists, clinicians and policy makers.

Major comments;

• The study uses retrospective review of routine medical records and therefore problems often encountered when dealing with routine data emerge as shown by high level of missingness in variables included in the analysis. Without understanding the pattern of missingness of the variables (MAR, MCAR, MNAR) then it is difficult to know if it is appropriate to do complete case analysis as done by the authors in the models. Biased estimates can be obtained when missingness is informative. The authors should therefore investigate the nature of missingness and convince readers that it is appropriate to perform complete case analysis without need to account for missing data in their analysis

• Data was collected from 7 hospitals (therefore clustered) but the analysis does not account for the clustered nature of the data. Multilevel modelling would be more appropriate

• Authors collected information on treatment variables in addition to other exposure variables however the analysis does not describe how the treatment variables were analysed when identifying risk factors. Risk factors as presently described have been previously described and what would be more informative is if an analysis incorporating the effect modification of WHO recommended treatment as decribed by Knol MJ (Int J Epidemiol 2012) was performed. Can the authors also include information on appropriate feeds as part of treatment information

• Was definition of SAM based on clinician diagnosis only (rather than algorithm defined); if yes then there is potential for missing cases and this affects both numerators and denominators

Minor comments

• Lines 112-114; The age range here is large and older children may be adequately fed on solid foods without need for formula supplementation or breastfeeding

• Line 116: Assumes that causality can be ascertained-rephrase

• Line 197-rehydration therapy is recommended in children with diarrhoea; denominator should be children with diarrhoea

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Olivier Mukuku

Reviewer #2: Yes: Samuel Akech

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 May 8;15(5):e0232838. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232838.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


4 Mar 2020

Editor comments:

Comment: Journal requirements

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Response:Thank you for the comment, we amended accordingly.

Comment: You indicated that you had ethical approval for your study. In your Methods section, please ensure you have also stated whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians of the minors included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB specifically waived the need for their consent.

Response: Thank you very much for the input. Ethics committee waived the need of the informed consent of the caregivers. We added this under method section. We also included ethics approval letter under supplementary materials.

Comment: Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly.

Response: We added captions for ethics approval letter and dataset accordingly. We also updated in-text citation under ethical considerations (line 163).

Comment: Consider using “Factors associated with mortality…” instead of “Risk factors associated with mortality…” in the heading and elsewhere in the manuscript.

Response: We amended accordingly. We used “Factors associated with mortality…” instead of “Risk factors associated with mortality”.

Comment: Consider using methods such as multiple imputation to account for missing data. This can be done as a sensitivity analysis.

Response: We did multiple imputation to account for missing data.

Comment: Line 298: The conclusion about representativeness may not be true? Did you check for representativeness? Exclusion of children with missing hospital records and restriction of the study to children admitted in public hospitals could have affected representativeness.

Response: We amended the sentence to reflect that our findings apply to children admitted in public health sector facilities. We assume that this implies our findings do not apply to children who are not admitted and those who make use of private sector facilities. Regarding missing records, we do not think that the characteristics of children with missing records differed from those that we obtained.

Reviewer 1 comments:

Comment: Introduction section;

In your introduction, we note that you did not state a clear research question. Please could you include a statement regarding your research question in the introduction.

Response: Thank you for the comment. In the last paragraph of the introduction, we provided a justification for the study and stated the aim of this study.

Comment: Materials and methods section;

It would be better to put references to these operational definitions.

Please cite co-morbidities and complications of SAM in this section.

Response: Thank you for the feedback. The terms complication and co-morbidities have been used extensively in the literature on SAM. In order to avoid confusion, we decided to split them in the manner that we did. In that way, we can reasonably distinguish medical conditions that were present in the patient before development of SAM from conditions that occurred as a result of SAM.

Reviewer 2 comments

Major comments:

The study uses retrospective review of routine medical records and therefore problems often encountered when dealing with routine data emerge as shown by high level of missingness in variables included in the analysis. Without understanding the pattern of missingness of the variables (MAR, MCAR, MNAR) then it is difficult to know if it is appropriate to do complete case analysis as done by the authors in the models. Biased estimates can be obtained when missingness is informative. The authors should therefore investigate the nature of missingness and convince readers that it is appropriate to perform complete case analysis without need to account for missing data in their analysis

Response: Thank you for the comment. Our data was missing at random (MAR). Therefore, we did multiple imputation and reported final model of imputed data.

Comment: Data was collected from 7 hospitals (therefore clustered) but the analysis does not account for the clustered nature of the data. Multilevel modelling would be more appropriate.

Response: We revised accordingly by adjusting for clusters in univariable analysis and in our final model.

Comment: Was definition of SAM based on clinician diagnosis only (rather than algorithm defined); if yes then there is potential for missing cases and this affects both numerators and denominators.

Response: This study was based on collecting data from medical records and we included only children who were diagnosed with SAM by the treating clinician.

Comment: Authors collected information on treatment variables in addition to other exposure variables however; the analysis does not describe how the treatment variables were analyzed when identifying risk factors.

Response: We limited ourselves to describing the type of treatment received, as we did not collect information of all SAM treatment regimens.

Comment: Risk factors as presently described have been previously described and what would be more informative is if an analysis incorporating the effect modification of WHO recommended treatment as decribed by Knol MJ (Int J Epidemiol 2012) was performed.

Response: It is true that several studies have addressed risk factors for mortality in children with SAM. However, in our study, we were interested in exploring risk factors in a specific province of South Africa. We did not collect enough data on WHO recommended treatment to enable exploration of effect modification and so we are unable to perform this analysis.

Comment: Can the authors also include information on appropriate feeds as part of treatment information.

Response: We did not collect information on appropriate feeds during hospital admission.

Minor comments

Lines 112-114; The age range here is large and older children may be adequately fed on solid foods without need for formula supplementation or breastfeeding.

Response: We amended accordingly. We divided age category 7 to 59 months into two categories (7 to 24 months and 25 to 59 months).

Comment: Line 116: Assumes that causality can be ascertained-rephrase.

Response: We rephrased accordingly. We wrote “Any medical condition occurring in a child with SAM” instead of “Any medical condition occurring because of SAM”.

Comment: Line 197-rehydration therapy is recommended in children with diarrhoea; denominator should be children with diarrhoea.

Response: Thanks for the comment. Extensive literature on SAM has demonstrated that all children with SAM have some degree of dehydration, which is why rehydration is an obligatory component when treating children with SAM. Furthermore, dehydration can be due to other causes other such as vomiting or inadequate fluid intake- due to loss of appetite.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Calistus Wilunda

23 Apr 2020

Risk factors associated with mortality in children under five years old hospitalized for Severe Acute Malnutrition in Limpopo province, South Africa, 2014-2018: A cross-sectional analytic study

PONE-D-19-31811R1

Dear Dr. Gavhi,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Calistus Wilunda, DrPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have appropriately addressed prior suggestions. Otherwise, I think the manuscript is well-revised.

Reviewer #2: The authors have adequately addressed previous comments

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Olivier Mukuku

Reviewer #2: Yes: Samuel Akech

Acceptance letter

Calistus Wilunda

28 Apr 2020

PONE-D-19-31811R1

Factors associated with mortality in children under five years old hospitalized for severe acute malnutrition in Limpopo province, South Africa, 2014-2018: A cross-sectional analytic study

Dear Dr. Gavhi:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Calistus Wilunda

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Ethical approval letter.

    (PDF)

    S1 Dataset. Manuscript data.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES