4.5 Article

Differences between European birthweight standards: impact on classification of 'small for gestational age'

期刊

DEVELOPMENTAL MEDICINE AND CHILD NEUROLOGY
卷 48, 期 11, 页码 906-912

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1017/S0012162206001988

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [G0400642] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Medical Research Council [G0400642] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. MRC [G0400642] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We describe a quantitative and comparative review of a selection of European birthweight standards for gestational age for singletons, to enable appropriate choices to be made for clinical and research use. Differences between median values at term across standards in 10 regions and misclassification of 'small for gestational age' (SGA), were studied. Sex and parity differences, exclusion criteria, and methods of construction were considered. There was wide variation between countries in exclusion criteria, methods of calculating standards, and median birthweight at term. The lightest standards (e.g. France's medians are 255g lower than Norway's medians) were associated with fewer exclusion criteria. Up to 20% of the population used in the construction of the Scottish standard would be classified as SGA using the Norwegian standard. Substantial misclassification of SGA is possible. Assumptions about variation used in the construction of some standards were not justified. It is not possible to conclude that there are real differences in birthweight standards between European countries. Country-based standards control for some population features but add misclassification due to the differing ways in which standards are derived. Standards should be chosen to reflect clinical or research need. If standards stratified by sex or parity are not available, adjustments should be made. In multinational studies, comparisons should be made between results using both a common standard and country-based standards.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据