Evaluation of the Mercy TAPE

Performance against the standard for pediatric weight estimation

Susan M. Abdel-Rahman, Ian Paul, Laura P. James, Andrew Lewandowski

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

24 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Study objective: We assessed the performance of 2 new devices (2D- and 3D-Mercy TAPE) to implement the Mercy Method for pediatric weight estimation and contrasted their accuracy with the Broselow method. Methods: We enrolled children aged 2 months through 16 years in this prospective, multicenter, observational study. Height/length, weight, humeral length, and mid-upper arm circumference were obtained for each child, using calibrated scales and measures. We then made measurements with blinded versions of the 2D- and 3D-TAPEs. Using height/length data, we calculated the weight estimated by the Broselow method. We contrasted measures with mean error, mean percentage error, and percentage predicted within 10% and 20% of actual. Results: Six hundred twenty-four participants (median 8.5 years, 27.6 kg, 17.3 kg/m2) completed the study. Mean error was 0.3 kg (mean percentage error 1.6%), 0.2 kg (mean percentage error 1.9%), and -1.3 kg (mean percentage error -4.1%) for 2D-, 3D-, and Broselow, respectively. Concordance between both TAPE devices and the Mercy Method was greater than 0.99. The proportion of children predicted within 10% and 20% of actual weight was 76% and 98% for the 2D-TAPE and 65% and 93% for the 3D-TAPE. Excluding the 209 (33%) children who were too tall for the device, Broselow predictions were within 10% and 20% of actual weight in 59% and 91%. Conclusion: The 2D- and 3D-Mercy TAPEs outperform the Broselow tape for pediatric weight estimation and can be used in a wider range of children.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalAnnals of Emergency Medicine
Volume62
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2013

Fingerprint

Pediatrics
Weights and Measures
Equipment and Supplies
Multicenter Studies
Observational Studies
Arm

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Emergency Medicine

Cite this

Abdel-Rahman, Susan M. ; Paul, Ian ; James, Laura P. ; Lewandowski, Andrew. / Evaluation of the Mercy TAPE : Performance against the standard for pediatric weight estimation. In: Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2013 ; Vol. 62, No. 4.
@article{254c0981dcf245018d528ac9329ac632,
title = "Evaluation of the Mercy TAPE: Performance against the standard for pediatric weight estimation",
abstract = "Study objective: We assessed the performance of 2 new devices (2D- and 3D-Mercy TAPE) to implement the Mercy Method for pediatric weight estimation and contrasted their accuracy with the Broselow method. Methods: We enrolled children aged 2 months through 16 years in this prospective, multicenter, observational study. Height/length, weight, humeral length, and mid-upper arm circumference were obtained for each child, using calibrated scales and measures. We then made measurements with blinded versions of the 2D- and 3D-TAPEs. Using height/length data, we calculated the weight estimated by the Broselow method. We contrasted measures with mean error, mean percentage error, and percentage predicted within 10{\%} and 20{\%} of actual. Results: Six hundred twenty-four participants (median 8.5 years, 27.6 kg, 17.3 kg/m2) completed the study. Mean error was 0.3 kg (mean percentage error 1.6{\%}), 0.2 kg (mean percentage error 1.9{\%}), and -1.3 kg (mean percentage error -4.1{\%}) for 2D-, 3D-, and Broselow, respectively. Concordance between both TAPE devices and the Mercy Method was greater than 0.99. The proportion of children predicted within 10{\%} and 20{\%} of actual weight was 76{\%} and 98{\%} for the 2D-TAPE and 65{\%} and 93{\%} for the 3D-TAPE. Excluding the 209 (33{\%}) children who were too tall for the device, Broselow predictions were within 10{\%} and 20{\%} of actual weight in 59{\%} and 91{\%}. Conclusion: The 2D- and 3D-Mercy TAPEs outperform the Broselow tape for pediatric weight estimation and can be used in a wider range of children.",
author = "Abdel-Rahman, {Susan M.} and Ian Paul and James, {Laura P.} and Andrew Lewandowski",
year = "2013",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.annemergmed.2013.02.021",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "62",
journal = "Annals of Emergency Medicine",
issn = "0196-0644",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "4",

}

Evaluation of the Mercy TAPE : Performance against the standard for pediatric weight estimation. / Abdel-Rahman, Susan M.; Paul, Ian; James, Laura P.; Lewandowski, Andrew.

In: Annals of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 62, No. 4, 01.10.2013.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of the Mercy TAPE

T2 - Performance against the standard for pediatric weight estimation

AU - Abdel-Rahman, Susan M.

AU - Paul, Ian

AU - James, Laura P.

AU - Lewandowski, Andrew

PY - 2013/10/1

Y1 - 2013/10/1

N2 - Study objective: We assessed the performance of 2 new devices (2D- and 3D-Mercy TAPE) to implement the Mercy Method for pediatric weight estimation and contrasted their accuracy with the Broselow method. Methods: We enrolled children aged 2 months through 16 years in this prospective, multicenter, observational study. Height/length, weight, humeral length, and mid-upper arm circumference were obtained for each child, using calibrated scales and measures. We then made measurements with blinded versions of the 2D- and 3D-TAPEs. Using height/length data, we calculated the weight estimated by the Broselow method. We contrasted measures with mean error, mean percentage error, and percentage predicted within 10% and 20% of actual. Results: Six hundred twenty-four participants (median 8.5 years, 27.6 kg, 17.3 kg/m2) completed the study. Mean error was 0.3 kg (mean percentage error 1.6%), 0.2 kg (mean percentage error 1.9%), and -1.3 kg (mean percentage error -4.1%) for 2D-, 3D-, and Broselow, respectively. Concordance between both TAPE devices and the Mercy Method was greater than 0.99. The proportion of children predicted within 10% and 20% of actual weight was 76% and 98% for the 2D-TAPE and 65% and 93% for the 3D-TAPE. Excluding the 209 (33%) children who were too tall for the device, Broselow predictions were within 10% and 20% of actual weight in 59% and 91%. Conclusion: The 2D- and 3D-Mercy TAPEs outperform the Broselow tape for pediatric weight estimation and can be used in a wider range of children.

AB - Study objective: We assessed the performance of 2 new devices (2D- and 3D-Mercy TAPE) to implement the Mercy Method for pediatric weight estimation and contrasted their accuracy with the Broselow method. Methods: We enrolled children aged 2 months through 16 years in this prospective, multicenter, observational study. Height/length, weight, humeral length, and mid-upper arm circumference were obtained for each child, using calibrated scales and measures. We then made measurements with blinded versions of the 2D- and 3D-TAPEs. Using height/length data, we calculated the weight estimated by the Broselow method. We contrasted measures with mean error, mean percentage error, and percentage predicted within 10% and 20% of actual. Results: Six hundred twenty-four participants (median 8.5 years, 27.6 kg, 17.3 kg/m2) completed the study. Mean error was 0.3 kg (mean percentage error 1.6%), 0.2 kg (mean percentage error 1.9%), and -1.3 kg (mean percentage error -4.1%) for 2D-, 3D-, and Broselow, respectively. Concordance between both TAPE devices and the Mercy Method was greater than 0.99. The proportion of children predicted within 10% and 20% of actual weight was 76% and 98% for the 2D-TAPE and 65% and 93% for the 3D-TAPE. Excluding the 209 (33%) children who were too tall for the device, Broselow predictions were within 10% and 20% of actual weight in 59% and 91%. Conclusion: The 2D- and 3D-Mercy TAPEs outperform the Broselow tape for pediatric weight estimation and can be used in a wider range of children.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84884500209&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84884500209&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2013.02.021

DO - 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2013.02.021

M3 - Article

VL - 62

JO - Annals of Emergency Medicine

JF - Annals of Emergency Medicine

SN - 0196-0644

IS - 4

ER -