4.7 Article

Construction of China national newborn growth standards based on a large low-risk sample

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-94606-6

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Maternal and Child Health Program of the National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China [2015-42]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A study developed neonatal growth standards based on a large sample of low-risk pregnancies, including six anthropometric indicators, providing more tools for growth and nutrition assessment in neonatal clinical practice. These standards can be used for growth, nutrition assessment, and body proportionality, showing differences between growth curves based on low-risk and mixed low- and high-risk pregnancies.
Most published newborn growth references are based on conventional monitoring data that usually included both low- and high-risk pregnancies. We sought to develop a set of neonatal growth standards constructed from only a large sample of low-risk pregnancies. A total of 24,375 naturally conceived singleton live births with gestational ages of 24-42 weeks were collected in 69 hospitals in thirteen Chinese cities between 2015 and 2018. Unhealthy infants or those with high-risk mother were excluded. Smoothed percentile curves of six anthropometric indicators were established using the Generalized Additive Model for Location, Scale and Shape. The 3rd, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th, and 97th percentile references for birth weight, length, head circumference, weight/length, body mass index, and ponderal index were calculated for neonates with gestational ages of 24-42 weeks. This set of neonatal growth standards with six anthropometric indicators can provide more tools for growth and nutrition assessment and body proportionality in neonatal clinical practice. These standards might also help to show the differences between growth curves based on low-risk and mixed low- and high-risk pregnancies.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available