Biomarkers · Anthropometric

Mid-Upper-Arm Circumference

Higher values go with lower risk of death. Not measured in our NHANES panel. The curve is drawn from the published study (source below).

Mid-Upper-Arm Circumference and risk of death

Published curve higher than the NHANES fitNHANES fit higher

Risk of death relative to the curve's reference value, drawn from the published study (source below).

Published risk of death0.59×Q4 (>=36.1 cm) vs Q1 (<=29.3 cm) of MUAC (protective form as reported) (95% CI 0.46–0.75) · NHANES 1999-2018 nationally representative US adults linked to National Death Index

Mid-Upper-Arm Circumference by age and sex

Each bar runs from the 5th to the 95th percentile, the darker part from the 25th to the 75th, and the tick is the median. Not a reference range or a target.

The percentiles as a table

Each row is one sex and age band: the values below which 5%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 95% of people fall (cm), from the survey named in the row. Not a reference range or a target.
Sex	Age	5th	25th	Median	75th	95th	n	Cycle / source
All	20-39	25.2	29.5	33.6	37.4	43.5	1,474	NHANES 2017-2018
All	40-59	26.0	30.6	33.9	37.5	43.5	1,594	NHANES 2017-2018
All	60+	25.7	29.3	32.2	35.7	40.8	1,881	NHANES 2017-2018
All	all	25.7	29.8	33.2	36.8	42.9	4,949	NHANES 2017-2018
Men	20-39	27.2	31.6	35.0	38.0	43.7	711	NHANES 2017-2018
Men	40-59	29.0	32.5	35.2	38.4	43.5	752	NHANES 2017-2018
Men	60+	26.4	30.5	33.2	36.5	41.3	968	NHANES 2017-2018
Men	all	27.5	31.5	34.6	37.7	43.5	2,431	NHANES 2017-2018
Women	20-39	24.2	27.9	31.6	35.7	43.1	763	NHANES 2017-2018
Women	40-59	25.2	29.2	32.3	36.1	43.4	842	NHANES 2017-2018
Women	60+	25.0	28.5	31.3	35.0	40.4	913	NHANES 2017-2018
Women	all	24.9	28.4	31.8	35.5	42.7	2,518	NHANES 2017-2018

What studies found when this marker was changed

They describe what happened in those study groups, not a recommendation. See all catalogued interventions.

Measured changes in Mid-Upper-Arm Circumference, study by study

3 effects with a numeric size, each from one study arm: the dot is the reported change, the line its 95% interval where one was given. Green points move the marker the way lower risk of death lies; amber the other way. Study results in the groups studied, not predictions for a person.

Each row is one study: what was changed, the effect it reported on this marker, and the source.
Type	Intervention	Reported effect	Evidence	Source
clinical	Enteral feeding via PEG rather than nasogastric tube in adults with swallowing disturbances	Mid-arm circumference change +1.16 cm (95% CI 1.01 to 1.31) with PEG vs NGT	meta-analysis	Gomes CA, Andriolo RB, Bennett C, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015.
exercise	Supervised or home-based physical exercise programmes for 8-14 weeks in people with cirrhosis	Mid-arm circumference increased by 2.61 cm (95% CI 0.36 to 4.85) vs control	meta-analysis	Aamann L, Dam G, Rinnov AR, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018.
pharmacologic	Multiple-dose mass deworming (anthelmintic) programmes in children in endemic settings	Mid-upper-arm circumference increased by 0.20 cm (95% CI 0.03 to 0.37) with multiple-dose MDA	meta-analysis	Croke K, Hamory J, Hsu E, et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024.

Sources

Risk curve: Hou 2023 (PMID 37985990): all-cause HR 0.59 (0.46-0.75) Q4 (>=36.1 cm) vs Q1 (<=29.3 cm) of MUAC (protective form as reported). Scaled to US values (NHANES).
Hou et al. The L-shaped association of mid-upper arm circumference with all-cause and cause-specific mortality in US adults: a population-based prospective cohort study. BMC public health. 2023;23:2297.

Map Mid-Upper-Arm Circumference against another biomarker.

Map Mid-Upper-Arm Circumference against another marker