4.6 Article

Defining small-for-gestational-age: prescriptive versus descriptive birthweight standards

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
Volume 175, Issue 8, Pages 1047-1057

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00431-016-2740-8

Keywords

Small for gestational age; Intrauterine growth restriction; Reference standards; Sensitivity and specificity; Perinatal mortality and morbidity

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Descriptive population-based birthweight standards possess low sensitivity in detecting infants with growth impairment. A prescriptive birthweight standard based on a 'healthy' subpopulation without risk factors for intrauterine growth restriction might be superior. We created two birthweight standards based on live born, singleton infants with gestational age 24-42 weeks and born in The Netherlands between 2000 and 2007. Inclusion criteria for the prescriptive birthweight standard were restricted to infants without congenital malformations, born to healthy mothers after uncomplicated pregnancies. We defined small-for-gestational-age (SGA) as birthweight < 10th percentile and assessed the ability of both standards to predict adverse neonatal outcomes. The prescriptive birthweight standard identified significantly more infants as SGA, up to 38.0 % at 29 weeks gestation. SGA infants classified according to both standards as well as those classified according to the prescriptive birthweight standard only, were at increased risk of both major and minor adverse neonatal outcomes. The prescriptive birthweight standard was both more sensitive and less specific, with a maximum increase in sensitivity predicting bronchopulmonary dysplasia (+42.6 %) and a maximum decrease in specificity predicting intraventricular haemorrhage (-26.9 %) in infants aged 28-31 weeks. Conclusion: Prescriptive birthweight standards could improve identification of infants born SGA and at risk of adverse neonatal outcomes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available