+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Small-for-gestational age and large-for-gestational age thresholds to predict infants at risk of adverse delivery and neonatal outcomes: are current charts adequate? An observational study from the Born in Bradford cohort

Small-for-gestational age and large-for-gestational age thresholds to predict infants at risk of adverse delivery and neonatal outcomes: are current charts adequate? An observational study from the Born in Bradford cohort

Bmj Open 5(3): E006743

Construct an ethnic-specific chart and compare the prediction of adverse outcomes using this chart with the clinically recommended UK-WHO and customised birth weight charts using cut-offs for small-for-gestational age (SGA: birth weight <10th centile) and large-for-gestational age (LGA: birth weight >90th centile). Prospective cohort study. Born in Bradford (BiB) study, UK. 3980 White British and 4448 Pakistani infants with complete data for gestational age, birth weight, ethnicity, maternal height, weight and parity. Prevalence of SGA and LGA, using the three charts and indicators of diagnostic utility (sensitivity, specificity and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC)) of these chart-specific cut-offs to predict delivery and neonatal outcomes and a composite outcome. In White British and Pakistani infants, the prevalence of SGA and LGA differed depending on the chart used. Increased risk of SGA was observed when using the UK-WHO and customised charts as opposed to the ethnic-specific chart, while the opposite was apparent when classifying LGA infants. However, the predictive utility of all three charts to identify adverse clinical outcomes was poor, with only the prediction of shoulder dystocia achieving an AUROC>0.62 on all three charts. Despite being recommended in national clinical guidelines, the UK-WHO and customised birth weight charts perform poorly at identifying infants at risk of adverse neonatal outcomes. Being small or large may increase the risk of an adverse outcome; however, size alone is not sensitive or specific enough with current detection to be useful. However, a significant amount of missing data for some of the outcomes may have limited the power needed to determine true associations.

Please choose payment method:

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 058868704

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 25783424

DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006743

Related references

Optimal gestational weight gain must not be determined from adverse birth weight outcomes defined only as the total percentage of infants born small- or large-for-gestational-age. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 91(3): 819, 2010

Adverse neonatal outcomes in small and large for gestational age infants by birthweight vs fetal norms. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 218(1): S98-S99, 2018

Term small-for-gestational-age infants from low-risk women are at significantly greater risk of adverse neonatal outcomes. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 218(5): 525.E1-525.E9, 2018

Incidence of infants born small- and large-for-gestational-age in an Italian cohort over a 20-year period and associated risk factors. Italian Journal of Pediatrics 42: 42, 2016

Prescriptive birthweight charts can improve the prediction of adverse outcomes in very preterm infants who are small for gestational age. Acta Paediatrica 107(6): 981-989, 2018

Customized versus Population Fetal Growth Norms and Adverse Outcomes Associated with Small for Gestational Age Infants in a High-Risk Cohort. American Journal of Perinatology 32(7): 621-626, 2016

Total body bone mineral content in small-for-gestational -age, appropriate-for-gestational -age, large-for-gestational -age term infants and appropriate-for-gestational -age preterm infants. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 56(2): 109-114, 1995

Prepregnancy body mass index is an independent risk factor for gestational hypertension, gestational diabetes, preterm labor, and small- and large-for-gestational-age infants. Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine 28(14): 1679-1686, 2015

Risk factors and adverse perinatal outcomes among term and preterm infants born small-for-gestational-age: secondary analyses of the WHO Multi-Country Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health. Plos one 9(8): E105155, 2014

Females born large for gestational age have a doubled risk of giving birth to large for gestational age infants. Acta Paediatrica 96(3): 358-362, 2007

Neonatal outcomes following extensive cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the delivery room for infants born at less than 33 weeks gestational age. Resuscitation 85(2): 238-243, 2014

Are the neonatal outcomes similar in large-for-gestational age infants delivered by women with or without gestational diabetes mellitus?. World Journal of Pediatrics 8(2): 136-139, 2012

Risk for late-onset blood-culture proven sepsis in very-low-birth weight infants born small for gestational age: a large multicenter study from the German Neonatal Network. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 33(3): 238-243, 2014

Perinatal correlates and neonatal outcomes of small for gestational age infants born at term gestation. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 185(3): 652-659, 2001

Gestational age-specific normal birth weight for Japanese twins. Risk of early neonatal death in small-for-gestational-age and large-for-gestational-age twins. Journal of Reproductive Medicine 44(7): 625-629, 1999