ࡱ >
\ p None B a = c @ = Z ?N*8 X" 1 Arial1 Arial1 Arial1 Arial1 Arial1 Arial1 Arial General ` Table 3 Control group Intervention group PBF-N Impact Logit estimates % n N Odds ratio p-value (95% CI) Nb of obs% Within consultations observed:' Acute malnutrition was diagnosed before 3.46% 9 260 1.97% 5 254 1.77 0,527
(0,30; 10,42) 1 042 after 3.42% 9263 3.40% 2655 False positive of acute malnutrition diagnosis 1.00% 2 205 1.33% 3 226 2.98 0,512
(0,11; 78,34) 876 0.45% 1 223 1.80% 45 False negative of acute malnutrition diagnosis 86.54% 45 52 92.59% 25 27 0.98 0,983 (0,11; 8,50) 162 80.00% 32 40 88.37% 38 43 Within fictive cases:9 Vignette 1: diagnosis of complicated SAM was found 7.0% 71 6.8% 74 1,34 0,718
('0,27; 6,67) 313 12.9% 11 85 16.0% 13 81; Vignette 2: diagnosis of uncomplicated SAM was found 15.5% 12.2% 1,85 0,384 (0,46; 7,40) 20.0% 17 25.9% 21- Vignette 3: diagnosis of MAM was found 28.2% 20 24.3% 18 0,83 0,722 (0,30; 2,29) 42.4% 36 33.3%( Using clinical files transcripts: Poisson estimates Mean (median) SD
IRR# Nb of MAM cases per semester 62.0 (29) 109.4r 33.4 (20) 39.5 17,9 <0.001
(7,11; 45,07) 180 12.7 (0) 27.1
122.2 (66) 182.71 Nb of uncomplicated SAM cases per semesterr 40.1 (33) 36.4 24.9 (17) 21.4 3,06 (1,92; 4,87)r 41.5 (28) 46.4r 78.9 (62) 68.8
d MbP?_ % * + &P &F