Article Sidebar
Published:
Sep 5, 2022Article Details
Copyright remains in the Author’s name. The work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution - Noncommercial Works License. Authors are required to complete and sign an Author Agreement form that outlines Author and Publisher rights and terms of publication. The Agreement form should be uploaded along with other submissions files and any submission will be considered incomplete without it [forthcoming].
Material submitted for publication in the SAMJ is accepted provided it has not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere. Please inform the editorial team if the main findings of your paper have been presented at a conference and published in abstract form, to avoid copyright infringement. The SAMJ does not hold itself responsible for statements made by the authors.
Previously published images
If an image/figure has been previously published, permission to reproduce or alter it must be obtained by the authors from the original publisher and the figure legend must give full credit to the original source. This credit should be accompanied by a letter indicating that permission to reproduce the image has been granted to the author/s. This letter should be uploaded as a supplementary file during submission.
Main Article Content
Are adults just big kids? Can the newer paediatric weight estimation systems be used in adults?
Abstract
Background. The weight of a patient is an important variable that impacts on their medical care. Although some drugs are prescribed on a so-called ‘adult dose’ basis, we know that adults come in all shapes and sizes – a ‘one-dose-fits-all’ approach is not necessarily appropriate. As a measured weight may not always be available, an alternative method of accurately estimating weight is required.
Objectives. To assess and compare the accuracy of weight estimations in adults by patient self-estimation, the Mercy method, Buckley method, Broca index and PAWPER XL-MAC (paediatric advanced weight prediction in the emergency room eXtra length/eXtra large mid-arm circumference) method.
Methods. This was a prospective, cross-sectional study conducted at a tertiary academic hospital in a metropolitan area of Johannesburg, South Africa. Anthropometric variables of height, abdominal circumference, thigh circumference, mid-arm circumference and humeral length were measured. These variables were then applied to the various weight estimation methods and compared with the patient’s actual weight.
Results. There were 188 adult patients included in the study. None of the methodologies evaluated in this study achieved the recommended >70% of weight estimations within 10% of the patient’s actual weight (PW10). The Mercy method was the closest to achieving greater than the recommended 95% for weight estimation falling within 20% of the patient’s actual weight (PW20). The PW20 for the Mercy method was 91.5%. The PAWPER XL-MAC and patient self-estimate methods achieved a PW20 of 85.1% and 86.1%, respectively. The Broca and Buckley methods performed poorly overall.
Conclusions. None of the evaluated weight estimation methodologies was accurate enough for use in adult weight estimation. The Mercy and PAWPER XL-MAC methodologies both showed significant promise for use in adult weight estimation, but need further refinement. Although patient self-estimates were similarly accurate to those found in previous studies, they were not an accurate option; self-estimations would remain the first choice if the patient was able to provide such an estimation. The Broca index and Buckley method cannot be recommended owing to their poor performance.
