Your question needs further clarification. I am not sure whether or not it is well captured. Before utilizing or sell the product of rapid MUAC screening result, we have to look at the following factors critically; how many children screened, How the screening was performed (was at facility level, community level, and centre point, house-to-house), in how many sites was the screening conducted. once these factors are clearly stated, then it is easy to say about the data.
This week, I had a chance to attend one workshop on integrated food security phase classification (IPC). One of the session was about the new approach on nutrition IPC tools. According to the presentation, MUAC screening is considered as one of the source of information to assess acute malnutrition. Data from rapid assessments is now treated as screening if they are done to quickly assess the situation. Minimum criteria have been set for MUAC screening data. 1. The selection of children should be random or exhaustive, 2. At least 200 children per site should be measured. If the number of children in the site are less than 200, all children should be measured (exhaustive). 3. There should be at least 3 different sites per unit of analysis. Unit of analysis could be district/county or other geographical area. According to the recommendation, during weighing of difference sources of information, reliability score of MUAC screening result is inferior to standard representative WFH or MUAC survey result. For detail information, the IPC senior advisory team can say more.
Following the session, I did find out that almost all rapid MUAC screening results conducted across the country doesn't fulfill the above criteria and were excluded from the analysis.