OBJECTIVE: To determine whether babies in an area of Britain with unusually high perinatal mortality have different patterns of fetal growth to those born elsewhere in the country. DESIGN: Measurement of body size in newborn babies. SETTING: Burnley (perinatal mortality in 1988 15.9/1000 total births) and Salisbury (perinatal mortality 10.8/1000 total births), England. SUBJECTS: Subjects comprised 1544 babies born in Burnley, Pendle, and Rossendale Health District, and 1025 babies born in Salisbury Health District. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Birthweight, length, head, arm and abdominal circumferences, and placental weight were determined. RESULTS: Compared with babies born in Salisbury, Burnley babies had lower mean birthweight (difference 116 g, 95% confidence interval (CI) 77,154), smaller head circumferences (difference 0.3 cm, 95% CI 0.2, 0.4), and were thinner as measured by arm circumference (difference 0.3 cm, 95% CI 0.3, 0.4), abdominal circumference (difference 0.5 cm, 95% CI 0.4, 0.6) and ponderal index (difference 0.8 kg/m3, 95% CI 0.6, 1.0). The ratio of placental weight to birthweight was higher in Burnley (difference 0.6%, 95% CI 0.4, 0.9). These differences were found in boys and girls and did not depend on differences in duration of gestation or on the different ethnic mix of the two districts. Mothers in Burnley were younger, shorter in stature, had had more children, were of lower social class, and more of them smoked during pregnancy than mothers in Salisbury. These differences did not explain the greater thinness of their babies. CONCLUSIONS: Babies born in Burnley, an area with high perinatal mortality, are thin. The reason is unknown. Poor maternal nutrition is suspected because Burnley babies have a higher ratio of placental weight to birthweight. The greater thinness at birth of Burnley babies could have long term consequences, including higher rates of cardiovascular disease.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether babies in an area of Britain with unusually high perinatal mortality have different patterns of fetal growth to those born elsewhere in the country. DESIGN: Measurement of body size in newborn babies. SETTING: Burnley (perinatal mortality in 1988 15.9/1000 total births) and Salisbury (perinatal mortality 10.8/1000 total births), England. SUBJECTS: Subjects comprised 1544 babies born in Burnley, Pendle, and Rossendale Health District, and 1025 babies born in Salisbury Health District. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Birthweight, length, head, arm and abdominal circumferences, and placental weight were determined. RESULTS: Compared with babies born in Salisbury, Burnley babies had lower mean birthweight (difference 116 g, 95% confidence interval (CI) 77,154), smaller head circumferences (difference 0.3 cm, 95% CI 0.2, 0.4), and were thinner as measured by arm circumference (difference 0.3 cm, 95% CI 0.3, 0.4), abdominal circumference (difference 0.5 cm, 95% CI 0.4, 0.6) and ponderal index (difference 0.8 kg/m3, 95% CI 0.6, 1.0). The ratio of placental weight to birthweight was higher in Burnley (difference 0.6%, 95% CI 0.4, 0.9). These differences were found in boys and girls and did not depend on differences in duration of gestation or on the different ethnic mix of the two districts. Mothers in Burnley were younger, shorter in stature, had had more children, were of lower social class, and more of them smoked during pregnancy than mothers in Salisbury. These differences did not explain the greater thinness of their babies. CONCLUSIONS: Babies born in Burnley, an area with high perinatal mortality, are thin. The reason is unknown. Poor maternal nutrition is suspected because Burnley babies have a higher ratio of placental weight to birthweight. The greater thinness at birth of Burnley babies could have long term consequences, including higher rates of cardiovascular disease.