Regional Gestational Age and Gender-Specific Birth Weight Reference Charts and its Comparison with Existing National and International Standards: A Cross-Sectional Study

IF 0.3 Q4 PEDIATRICS Journal of Child Science Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1055/s-0041-1740464
Ajay Prakash, S. Venkatesh, Srinivasan Sadagopan, S. Palanisamy
{"title":"Regional Gestational Age and Gender-Specific Birth Weight Reference Charts and its Comparison with Existing National and International Standards: A Cross-Sectional Study","authors":"Ajay Prakash, S. Venkatesh, Srinivasan Sadagopan, S. Palanisamy","doi":"10.1055/s-0041-1740464","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background Growth potential is influenced by race, ethnicity, and environmental factors and assessment of growth using standardized charts is important for quality improvement initiatives in health care delivery and public health interventions of any nation. Objective This article aims to develop regional gestational age and gender-specific reference for birth weight and to compare it with published literature. Methodology This study was conducted in a teaching hospital in Puducherry, India and included 2,507 singleton babies. Babies with major congenital anomalies, maternal chronic illness, and nonavailability of first trimester dating scan were excluded. Detailed anthropometric measurement was done for these babies by single investigator as per established norms, their gestation- and sex-specific mean weight and weight percentiles were calculated and compared with existing data. Results Both 10th and 90th percentiles were lower across all gestational ages compared with existing international standards. The proportion of late preterm and term small for gestational age (SGA) babies was 23% using Fenton-2013 reference chart, 14% using Intergrowth-21 chart, and 10% using the current study data (p < 0.0001). The proportion of large for gestational age (LGA) babies was 8.5%, using study data. Mean birth weight of male and female term babies born to primiparae were significantly higher compared with multiparae (p = 0.03 and 0.02, respectively). Conclusion Indian babies may be overdiagnosed as SGA or underdiagnosed as LGA based on existing western standards in which our patient population is underrepresented. There is a need for gestational age-, gender-, and parity-specific regional growth charts for better characterization of anthropometric measures of Indian babies.","PeriodicalId":41283,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Child Science","volume":"11 1","pages":"e306 - e312"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Child Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1740464","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Background Growth potential is influenced by race, ethnicity, and environmental factors and assessment of growth using standardized charts is important for quality improvement initiatives in health care delivery and public health interventions of any nation. Objective This article aims to develop regional gestational age and gender-specific reference for birth weight and to compare it with published literature. Methodology This study was conducted in a teaching hospital in Puducherry, India and included 2,507 singleton babies. Babies with major congenital anomalies, maternal chronic illness, and nonavailability of first trimester dating scan were excluded. Detailed anthropometric measurement was done for these babies by single investigator as per established norms, their gestation- and sex-specific mean weight and weight percentiles were calculated and compared with existing data. Results Both 10th and 90th percentiles were lower across all gestational ages compared with existing international standards. The proportion of late preterm and term small for gestational age (SGA) babies was 23% using Fenton-2013 reference chart, 14% using Intergrowth-21 chart, and 10% using the current study data (p < 0.0001). The proportion of large for gestational age (LGA) babies was 8.5%, using study data. Mean birth weight of male and female term babies born to primiparae were significantly higher compared with multiparae (p = 0.03 and 0.02, respectively). Conclusion Indian babies may be overdiagnosed as SGA or underdiagnosed as LGA based on existing western standards in which our patient population is underrepresented. There is a need for gestational age-, gender-, and parity-specific regional growth charts for better characterization of anthropometric measures of Indian babies.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
地区妊娠年龄和性别出生体重参考图及其与现行国家和国际标准的比较:一项横断面研究
摘要背景 增长潜力受种族、民族和环境因素的影响,使用标准化图表评估增长对于任何国家的医疗保健和公共卫生干预的质量改进举措都很重要。客观的 本文旨在开发地区胎龄和出生体重的性别参考,并将其与已发表的文献进行比较。方法论 这项研究是在印度普杜切里的一家教学医院进行的,包括2507名单身婴儿。排除患有严重先天性畸形、母亲患有慢性疾病和无法进行孕早期约会扫描的婴儿。由一名研究人员根据既定规范对这些婴儿进行了详细的人体测量,计算了他们的妊娠期和性别特异性平均体重和体重百分比,并与现有数据进行了比较。后果 与现有的国际标准相比,所有胎龄的第10和第90个百分位数都较低。使用Fenton-2013参考图,晚期早产和足月小于胎龄(SGA)婴儿的比例为23%,使用Intergrowth-21图为14%,使用当前研究数据为10%(p < 0.0001)。根据研究数据,妊娠期大婴儿(LGA)的比例为8.5%。初产妇所生的男性和女性足月婴儿的平均出生体重明显高于多产妇(p = 分别为0.03和0.02)。结论 根据现有的西方标准,印度婴儿可能被过度诊断为SGA,也可能被低估为LGA,在这些标准中,我们的患者群体代表性不足。为了更好地描述印度婴儿的人体测量指标,需要制定特定于胎龄、性别和胎次的区域生长图。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊最新文献
Immune Changes in Infants of Preeclampsia Mothers: A Systematic Review of Literature Associations between Media Use and Executive Dysfunction among Preschool Children in Bangkok, Thailand A Computer-Based Early Intervention for Thai Preschool Children at Risk of Dyslexia: A Pre- and Postintervention Study Marriage and Marital Fidelity in Interparental Relationship: A View from Religious Perspective Genotoxic and Cytotoxic Effects of Dental Radiographic Modalities on Buccal Mucosal Cells in Children
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1