Izzuddin M Aris1,2,3, Ken P Kleinman4, Mandy B Belfort5, Anjali Kaimal6,7, Emily Oken6,8. 1. Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute and Division of Chronic Disease Research Across the Lifecourse, Departments of Population Medicine and izzuddin_aris@harvardpilgrim.org. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. 3. Singapore Institute for Clinical Sciences, Agency for Science, Technology, and Research, Singapore, Singapore. 4. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts; and. 5. Department of Pediatric Newborn Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute and Division of Chronic Disease Research Across the Lifecourse, Departments of Population Medicine and. 7. Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, Harvard Medical School, and. 8. Department of Nutrition, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To provide an updated birth weight-for-gestational age (BW-for-GA) reference in the United States by using the most recent, nationally representative birth data with obstetric estimates of gestational age (GA). METHODS: We abstracted 3 285 552 singleton births between 22 and 42 weeks' gestation with nonmissing race and/or ethnicity, infant sex, parity, birth weight, and obstetric estimate of GA from the 2017 US natality files. We used 2 techniques (nonlinear, resistant smoothing [4253H] and lambda-mu-sigma) to derive smoothed BW-for-GA curves and compared resulting BW-for-GA cut-points at the third, 10th, 90th, and 97th percentiles with US references from 1999 to 2009. RESULTS: The smoothed BW-for-GA curves from both techniques overlapped considerably with each other, with strong agreements seen between the 2 techniques (>99% agreement; κ-statistic >0.9) for BW-for-GA cut-points at the third, 10th, 90th, and 97th percentiles across all GAs. Cut-points from 2017 using the lambda-mu-sigma method captured 9.8% to 10.2% of births <10th and >90th percentiles and 2.6% to 3.3% of births below the third and above the 97th percentile across all GAs. However, cut-points from US references in 1999 and 2009 (when GA was based on last menstrual period) captured a much larger range of proportions of 2017 births at these thresholds, especially among preterm and postterm GA categories. CONCLUSIONS: We have provided an updated BW-for-GA reference in the United States using the most recent births with obstetric estimates of GA and information to calculate continuous measures of birth size that are sex or parity specific.
OBJECTIVE: To provide an updated birth weight-for-gestational age (BW-for-GA) reference in the United States by using the most recent, nationally representative birth data with obstetric estimates of gestational age (GA). METHODS: We abstracted 3 285 552 singleton births between 22 and 42 weeks' gestation with nonmissing race and/or ethnicity, infant sex, parity, birth weight, and obstetric estimate of GA from the 2017 US natality files. We used 2 techniques (nonlinear, resistant smoothing [4253H] and lambda-mu-sigma) to derive smoothed BW-for-GA curves and compared resulting BW-for-GA cut-points at the third, 10th, 90th, and 97th percentiles with US references from 1999 to 2009. RESULTS: The smoothed BW-for-GA curves from both techniques overlapped considerably with each other, with strong agreements seen between the 2 techniques (>99% agreement; κ-statistic >0.9) for BW-for-GA cut-points at the third, 10th, 90th, and 97th percentiles across all GAs. Cut-points from 2017 using the lambda-mu-sigma method captured 9.8% to 10.2% of births <10th and >90th percentiles and 2.6% to 3.3% of births below the third and above the 97th percentile across all GAs. However, cut-points from US references in 1999 and 2009 (when GA was based on last menstrual period) captured a much larger range of proportions of 2017 births at these thresholds, especially among preterm and postterm GA categories. CONCLUSIONS: We have provided an updated BW-for-GA reference in the United States using the most recent births with obstetric estimates of GA and information to calculate continuous measures of birth size that are sex or parity specific.
Authors: Jonetta L Johnson; Sherry L Farr; Patricia M Dietz; Andrea J Sharma; Wanda D Barfield; Cheryl L Robbins Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-01-28 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Aris T Papageorghiou; Stephen H Kennedy; Laurent J Salomon; Douglas G Altman; Eric O Ohuma; William Stones; Michael G Gravett; Fernando C Barros; Cesar Victora; Manorama Purwar; Yasmin Jaffer; Julia A Noble; Enrico Bertino; Ruyan Pang; Leila Cheikh Ismail; Ann Lambert; Zulfiqar A Bhutta; José Villar Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Izzuddin M Aris; Mihir Gandhi; Yin Bun Cheung; Shu E Soh; Mya Thway Tint; Peter D Gluckman; Yung Seng Lee; Fabian K P Yap; Yap Seng Chong Journal: Ann Acad Med Singapore Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 2.473
Authors: Caitlin G Howe; Sara S Nozadi; Erika Garcia; Thomas G O'Connor; Anne P Starling; Shohreh F Farzan; Brian P Jackson; Juliette C Madan; Akram N Alshawabkeh; José F Cordero; Theresa M Bastain; John D Meeker; Carrie V Breton; Margaret R Karagas Journal: Environ Int Date: 2022-01-23 Impact factor: 9.621
Authors: Che-Jung Chang; Dana Boyd Barr; P Barry Ryan; Parinya Panuwet; Melissa M Smarr; Ken Liu; Kurunthachalam Kannan; Volha Yakimavets; Youran Tan; ViLinh Ly; Carmen J Marsit; Dean P Jones; Elizabeth J Corwin; Anne L Dunlop; Donghai Liang Journal: Environ Int Date: 2021-11-01 Impact factor: 9.621
Authors: Xuxin Chen; Tianyao Lu; Jeffrey Gould; Susan R Hintz; Deirdre J Lyell; Xiao Xu; Lillian Sie; Matthew Rysavy; Alexis S Davis; Henry C Lee Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2022-06-15 Impact factor: 6.314
Authors: Jessica Pippen; Bethany Stetson; Lindsay Doherty; Michael W Varner; Brian M Casey; Uma M Reddy; Ronald J Wapner; Dwight J Rouse; Alan T N Tita; John M Thorp; Edward K Chien; George R Saade; Sean C Blackwell Journal: Am J Perinatol Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 3.079
Authors: Roni Nitecki; Jessica Floyd; Kelly Lamiman; Mark A Clapp; Shuangshuang Fu; Kirsten Jorgensen; Alexander Melamed; Paula C Brady; Anjali Kaimal; Marcela G Del Carmen; Terri L Woodard; Larissa A Meyer; Sharon H Giordano; Pedro T Ramirez; J Alejandro Rauh-Hain Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 7.623
Authors: Sylvia E Badon; Charles P Quesenberry; Fei Xu; Lyndsay A Avalos; Monique M Hedderson Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Caitlin G Howe; Helen B Foley; Elizabeth M Kennedy; Sandrah P Eckel; Thomas A Chavez; Dema Faham; Brendan H Grubbs; Laila Al-Marayati; Deborah Lerner; Shakira Suglia; Theresa M Bastain; Carmen J Marsit; Carrie V Breton Journal: Epigenetics Date: 2021-03-18 Impact factor: 4.528
Authors: Assiamira Ferrara; Monique M Hedderson; Susan D Brown; Samantha F Ehrlich; Ai-Lin Tsai; Juanran Feng; Maren Galarce; Santica Marcovina; Patrick Catalano; Charles P Quesenberry Journal: Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 32.069
Authors: Teresa Janevic; Whitney Lieb; Erona Ibroci; Jezelle Lynch; Molly Lieber; Nina M Molenaar; Anna-Sophie Rommel; Lotje de Witte; Sophie Ohrn; Juan Manuel Carreño; Florian Krammer; Lauren B Zapata; Margaret Christine Snead; Rachel I Brody; Rebecca H Jessel; Stephanie Sestito; Alan Adler; Omara Afzal; Frederieke Gigase; Roy Missall; Daniel Carrión; Joanne Stone; Veerle Bergink; Siobhan M Dolan; Elizabeth A Howell Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM Date: 2022-04-21