4.6 Article

An Outcome-based Approach for the Creation of Fetal Growth Standards: Do Singletons and Twins Need Separate Standards?

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 169, Issue 5, Pages 616-624

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwn374

Keywords

birth weight; fetal development; gestational age; infant mortality; morbidity

Funding

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [MOP-67125]
  2. Fetal and Infant Health Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System
  3. Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Contemporary fetal growth standards are created by using theoretical properties (percentiles) of birth weight (for gestational age) distributions. The authors used a clinically relevant, outcome-based methodology to determine if separate fetal growth standards are required for singletons and twins. All singleton and twin livebirths between 36 and 42 weeks' gestation in the United States (1995-2002) were included, after exclusions for missing information and other factors (n = 17,811,922). A birth weight range was identified, at each gestational age, over which serious neonatal morbidity and neonatal mortality rates were lowest. Among singleton males at 40 weeks, serious neonatal morbidity/mortality rates were lowest between 3,012 g (95% confidence interval (CI): 3,008, 3,018) and 3,978 g (95% CI: 3,976, 3,980). The low end of this optimal birth weight range for females was 37 g (95% CI: 21, 53) less. The low optimal birth weight was 152 g (95% CI: 121, 183) less for twins compared with singletons. No differences were observed in low optimal birth weight by period (1999-2002 vs. 1995-1998), but small differences were observed for maternal education, race, parity, age, and smoking status. Patterns of birth weight-specific serious neonatal morbidity/neonatal mortality support the need for plurality-specific fetal growth standards.

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