Birthweight charts customised for maternal height optimises the classification of small and large-for-gestational age newborns

被引:0
|
作者
Zeegers, Bert [1 ]
Offerhaus, Pien [1 ]
Hoftiezer, Liset [2 ]
Groenendaal, Floris [3 ]
Zimmermann, Luc J. I. [4 ,5 ]
Verhoeven, Corine [6 ,7 ,8 ,9 ,10 ,11 ]
Gordijn, Sanne J. [12 ]
Nieuwenhuijze, Marianne J. [1 ,13 ]
机构
[1] Zuyd Univ, Res Ctr Midwifery Sci, Univ Singel 60, NL-6229 ER Maastricht, Netherlands
[2] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Amalia Childrens Hosp, Radboudumc Grad Sch, Dept Neonatol,Med Ctr, Nijmegen, Netherlands
[3] Univ Utrecht, Univ Med Ctr Utrecht, Wilhelmina Childrens Hosp, Dept Neonatol, Utrecht, Netherlands
[4] Maastricht UMC, Dept Paediat Neonatol, Maastricht, Netherlands
[5] Maastricht UMC, Sch Oncol & Dev Biol, Maastricht, Netherlands
[6] Amsterdam UMC Locat Vrije Univ Amsterdam, Midwifery Sci, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[7] InHolland, Midwifery Acad Amsterdam Groningen, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[8] Amsterdam Publ Hlth, Qual Care, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[9] Univ Groningen, Univ Med Ctr Groningen, Dept Gen Practice & Elderly Care Med, Groningen, Netherlands
[10] Univ Nottingham, Sch Hlth Sci, Div Midwifery, Nottingham, England
[11] Maxima Med Ctr, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Veldhoven, Netherlands
[12] Univ Groningen, Univ Med Ctr Groningen, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Groningen, Netherlands
[13] Maastricht Univ, CAPHRI, Maastricht, Netherlands
关键词
birthweight; customised birthweight chart; epidemiology; fetal growth; Hadlock; large for gestational age; maternal height; prescriptive birthweight chart; small for gestational; FETAL-GROWTH; STANDARDS; TERM;
D O I
10.1111/apa.17332
中图分类号
R72 [儿科学];
学科分类号
100202 ;
摘要
AimTo construct birthweight charts customised for maternal height and evaluate the effect of customization on SGA and LGA classification.MethodsData were extracted (n = 21 350) from the MiCaS project in the Netherlands (2012-2020). We constructed the MiCaS-birthweight chart customised for maternal height using Hadlock's method. We defined seven 5-centimetre height categories from 153 to 157 cm until 183-187 cm and calculated SGA and LGA prevalences for each category, using MiCaS and current Dutch birthweight charts.ResultsThe MiCaS-chart showed substantially higher birthweight values between identical percentiles with increasing maternal height. In the Dutch birthweight chart, not customised for maternal height, the prevalence of SGA (<p10) decreased with increasing maternal height category, from 19.7% in the lowest height category to 3.4% in the highest category (range 16.3%). Conversely, the prevalence of LGA (>p90) increased with increasing height category, from 1.4% in the lowest height category to 21.8% in the highest category (range 20.4%). In the MiCaS-birthweight chart, SGA and LGA prevalences were more constant across maternal heights, similar to overall prevalences (SGA range 3.3% and LGA range 1.7%).ConclusionCompared to the current Dutch birthweight chart, the MiCaS-birthweight chart customised for maternal height shows a more even distribution of SGA and LGA prevalences across maternal heights.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Customised growth charts in large-for-gestational-age infants and the association with emergency caesarean section rate
    Pritchard, Natasha
    Lindquist, Anthea
    Hiscock, Richard
    Diksha, Prerna
    Walker, Susan P.
    Permezel, Michael
    AUSTRALIAN & NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY, 2019, 59 (03): : 380 - 386
  • [22] Performance of Intergrowth 21st Growth Charts in the Diagnosis of Small and Large for Gestational Age in Term and Preterm Newborns
    Marques, Barbara
    Martins, Rosa
    Rodrigues, Teresa
    Oliveira, Graca
    Abrantes, Margarida
    ACTA MEDICA PORTUGUESA, 2020, 33 (01): : 15 - 21
  • [23] Abnormal Maternal Body Mass Index and Customized Fetal Weight Charts: Improving the Identification of Small for Gestational Age Fetuses and Newborns
    Gonzalez, Nieves Luisa Gonzalez
    Gonzalez Davila, Enrique
    Gonzalez Martin, Agustina
    Armas, Marina
    Tascon, Laura
    Farras, Alba
    Higueras, Teresa
    Mendoza, Manel
    Carreras, Elena
    Goya, Maria
    NUTRIENTS, 2023, 15 (03)
  • [24] The implications of an increased placental weight to birthweight ratio (placental ratio) in large-for-gestational age infants in Hong Kong
    Lao, TT
    Leung, WC
    PEDIATRIC RESEARCH, 2003, 53 (06) : 47A - 47A
  • [25] GROW instead of WHO birthweight charts for neonatal small-for-gestational-age hypoglycaemia management
    Holdsworth, R.
    Rigby, J.
    Fitzpatrick, C.
    Dewhurst, C.
    Yoxall, W.
    Agarwal, U.
    Roberts, D.
    Alfirevic, Z.
    BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2016, 123 : 62 - 62
  • [26] Comparison of Breast Milk Compositions Among Mothers Delivering Small-for-Gestational Age, Appropriate-for-Gestational Age, and Large-for-Gestational Age Infants
    Phattraprayoon, Nanthida
    Kraisonsin, Nadaprapai
    Kanjanapattanakul, Wiboon
    BREASTFEEDING MEDICINE, 2018, 13 (09) : 627 - 630
  • [27] Growth and fatness at three to six years of age of children born small- or large-for-gestational age
    Hediger, ML
    Overpeck, MD
    McGlynn, A
    Kuczmarski, RJ
    Maurer, KR
    Davis, WW
    PEDIATRICS, 1999, 104 (03) : art. no. - e33
  • [28] Differences between European birthweight standards: impact on classification of 'small for gestational age'
    Hemming, K.
    Hutton, J. L.
    Glinianaia, S. V.
    Jarvis, S. N.
    Platt, M. J.
    DEVELOPMENTAL MEDICINE AND CHILD NEUROLOGY, 2006, 48 (11): : 906 - 912
  • [29] MATERNAL LIPIDS AS PREDICTIVE FACTORS FOR LARGE FOR GESTATIONAL AGE NEWBORNS IN WOMEN WITH GESTATIONAL DIABETES MELLITUS
    Son, Gahyun
    Lee, Soo-Jin
    Kwak, Dong-Wook
    Kim, Young Han
    Kwon, Ja-Young
    Park, Young-Won
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2008, 199 (06) : S215 - S215
  • [30] Customised birthweight centiles are useful for identifying small-for-gestational-age babies in women with type 2 diabetes
    Rowan, Janet A.
    Luen, Steven
    Hughes, Ruth C.
    Sadler, Lynn C.
    McCowan, Lesley M. E.
    AUSTRALIAN & NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY, 2009, 49 (02): : 180 - 184