L C Y Poon1,2, M Y Tan1, G Yerlikaya1, A Syngelaki1, K H Nicolaides1. 1. Harris Birthright Research Centre for Fetal Medicine, King's College Hospital, London, UK. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To establish a normal range of birth weights for gestational age at delivery and to compare the proportion of live births and stillbirths that are classified as small-for-gestational age (SGA) according to our normal range vs that of the INTERGROWTH-21st standard. METHODS: The study population comprised 113 019 live births and 437 (0.4%) stillbirths. The inclusion criterion for establishing a normal range of birth weights for gestational age was the live birth of a phenotypically normal neonate ≥ 24 weeks' gestation and the exclusion criteria were smoking and prepregnancy hypertension, diabetes mellitus, systemic lupus erythematosus or antiphospholipid syndrome, pre-eclampsia, gestational hypertension, gestational diabetes mellitus or iatrogenic preterm birth for fetal growth restriction in the current pregnancy. Inclusion criteria were met by 92 018 live births. The proportions of live births and stillbirths with birth weights < 5th and < 10th percentiles of our normal range and those according to the INTERGROWTH-21st standard were determined and compared by the chi-square test and McNemar test. RESULTS: The proportions of live births and stillbirths with a birth weight < 5th percentile according to our standard were significantly higher than and discordant with the proportion according to the INTERGROWTH-21st standard (live birth: 5.6% vs 3.4%; stillbirth: 37.2% vs 22.7%). Similarly, the proportion of live births and stillbirths with a birth weight < 10th percentile according to our standard were significantly higher than and discordant with those according to the INTERGROWTH-21st standard (live birth: 11.2% vs 6.9%; stillbirth: 44.3% vs 32.6%). CONCLUSION: The INTERGROWTH-21st standard underestimates the proportion of SGA live births and stillbirths in our population.
OBJECTIVE: To establish a normal range of birth weights for gestational age at delivery and to compare the proportion of live births and stillbirths that are classified as small-for-gestational age (SGA) according to our normal range vs that of the INTERGROWTH-21st standard. METHODS: The study population comprised 113 019 live births and 437 (0.4%) stillbirths. The inclusion criterion for establishing a normal range of birth weights for gestational age was the live birth of a phenotypically normal neonate ≥ 24 weeks' gestation and the exclusion criteria were smoking and prepregnancy hypertension, diabetes mellitus, systemic lupus erythematosus or antiphospholipid syndrome, pre-eclampsia, gestational hypertension, gestational diabetes mellitus or iatrogenic preterm birth for fetal growth restriction in the current pregnancy. Inclusion criteria were met by 92 018 live births. The proportions of live births and stillbirths with birth weights < 5th and < 10th percentiles of our normal range and those according to the INTERGROWTH-21st standard were determined and compared by the chi-square test and McNemar test. RESULTS: The proportions of live births and stillbirths with a birth weight < 5th percentile according to our standard were significantly higher than and discordant with the proportion according to the INTERGROWTH-21st standard (live birth: 5.6% vs 3.4%; stillbirth: 37.2% vs 22.7%). Similarly, the proportion of live births and stillbirths with a birth weight < 10th percentile according to our standard were significantly higher than and discordant with those according to the INTERGROWTH-21st standard (live birth: 11.2% vs 6.9%; stillbirth: 44.3% vs 32.6%). CONCLUSION: The INTERGROWTH-21st standard underestimates the proportion of SGA live births and stillbirths in our population.
Authors: Nir Melamed; Ahmet Baschat; Yoav Yinon; Apostolos Athanasiadis; Federico Mecacci; Francesc Figueras; Vincenzo Berghella; Amala Nazareth; Muna Tahlak; H David McIntyre; Fabrício Da Silva Costa; Anne B Kihara; Eran Hadar; Fionnuala McAuliffe; Mark Hanson; Ronald C Ma; Rachel Gooden; Eyal Sheiner; Anil Kapur; Hema Divakar; Diogo Ayres-de-Campos; Liran Hiersch; Liona C Poon; John Kingdom; Roberto Romero; Moshe Hod Journal: Int J Gynaecol Obstet Date: 2021-03 Impact factor: 3.561
Authors: Christoph C Lees; Roberto Romero; Tamara Stampalija; Andrea Dall'Asta; Greggory A DeVore; Federico Prefumo; Tiziana Frusca; Gerard H A Visser; John C Hobbins; Ahmet A Baschat; Caterina M Bilardo; Henry L Galan; Stuart Campbell; Dev Maulik; Francesc Figueras; Wesley Lee; Julia Unterscheider; Herbert Valensise; Fabricio Da Silva Costa; Laurent J Salomon; Liona C Poon; Enrico Ferrazzi; Giancarlo Mari; Giuseppe Rizzo; John C Kingdom; Torvid Kiserud; Kurt Hecher Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2022-01-10 Impact factor: 10.693
Authors: Dewi Anggraini; Mali Abdollahian; Aprida Siska Lestia; Ferry Armanza; Yeni Rahkmawati; Nurul Hayah; Winda Adya Mehta Journal: Int J Gen Med Date: 2022-04-16
Authors: Matias C Vieira; Sophie Relph; Andrew Copas; Andrew Healey; Kirstie Coxon; Alessandro Alagna; Annette Briley; Mark Johnson; Deborah A Lawlor; Christoph Lees; Neil Marlow; Lesley McCowan; Louise Page; Donald Peebles; Andrew Shennan; Baskaran Thilaganathan; Asma Khalil; Jane Sandall; Dharmintra Pasupathy Journal: Trials Date: 2019-03-04 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Kwame Opare-Asamoah; George Asumeng Koffuor; Alhassan Abdul-Mumin; Baba Mohammed Sulemana; Majeed Saeed; Lawrence Quaye Journal: J Res Pharm Pract Date: 2021-05-13