Literature DB >> 2669484

Intrauterine growth retardation: standards for diagnosis.

R L Goldenberg1, G R Cutter, H J Hoffman, J M Foster, K G Nelson, J C Hauth.   

Abstract

An intrauterine growth-retarded infant is commonly defined as one weighing less than the 10th percentile in birth weight for its gestational age. However, because there is no standard population from which to derive these percentiles, the birth weights that serve as the cutoff point in various published studies may differ by several hundred grams at any gestational age. For this reason, we examined the studies from which the currently used 10th-percentile standards are derived to determine which factors may be responsible for the variation. In addition to obvious differences in the populations and geographic areas on which they were based, studies differed in how gestational age was determined, whether the gestational age was "rounded" or given in completed weeks, which types of infants were excluded, whether the studies were hospital or population based, and whether they were controlled for sex of the infant and race and parity of the mother. These differences in study methodology may be as or more important than the population differences in defining the 10th percentile cutoffs. A single national standard for intrauterine growth retardation would allow comparison between studies of risk factors, diagnostic tests, management, and long-term follow-up status of fetuses and infants with intrauterine growth retardation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2669484     DOI: 10.1016/0002-9378(89)90497-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  20 in total

1.  The epidemiology of perinatal mortality in multiple births.

Authors:  J L Kiely
Journal:  Bull N Y Acad Med       Date:  1990 Nov-Dec

2.  Comment on "Compromised birth outcomes and infant mortality among racial and ethnic groups".

Authors:  W J van der Veen
Journal:  Demography       Date:  1998-11

3.  Birth outcome, not pregnancy process: reply to van der Veen.

Authors:  W P Frisbie; D Forbes; R A Hummer; S G Pullum
Journal:  Demography       Date:  1998-11

4.  Quality assessment of fetal death records in Georgia: a method for improvement.

Authors:  J A Gaudino; C Blackmore-Prince; R Yip; R W Rochat
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 9.308

5.  Anthropometry of fetal growth in rural Malawi in relation to maternal malaria and HIV status.

Authors:  B F Kalanda; S van Buuren; F H Verhoeff; B J Brabin
Journal:  Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 5.747

6.  The prevalence of intrauterine growth retardation in Mexican Americans.

Authors:  H Balcazar
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 9.308

7.  The use of angiogenic biomarkers in maternal blood to identify which SGA fetuses will require a preterm delivery and mothers who will develop pre-eclampsia.

Authors:  Tinnakorn Chaiworapongsa; Roberto Romero; Amy E Whitten; Steven J Korzeniewski; Piya Chaemsaithong; Edgar Hernandez-Andrade; Lami Yeo; Sonia S Hassan
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2016

8.  Lower early neonatal mortality among singletons in transnational marriage families: Taiwan Birth Registry.

Authors:  Lai-Chu See; Yu-Ming Shen; Sheue-Rong Lin
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2008-04-25       Impact factor: 8.082

9.  Genital flora in pregnancy and its association with intrauterine growth retardation.

Authors:  M Germain; M A Krohn; S L Hillier; D A Eschenbach
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 5.948

10.  Prevalence of small-for-gestational-age and its mortality risk varies by choice of birth-weight-for-gestation reference population.

Authors:  Joanne Katz; Lauren A Wu; Luke C Mullany; Christian L Coles; Anne C C Lee; Naoko Kozuki; James M Tielsch
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-03-18       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.