Performance of Intergrowth 21st Growth Charts in the Diagnosis of Small and Large for Gestational Age in Term and Preterm Newborns

Authors

  • Bárbara Marques Neonatology Service. Department of Pediatrics. Hospital Santa Maria. Centro Hospitalar e Universitário Lisboa Norte. Centro Académico de Medicina de Lisboa. Lisboa.
  • Rosa Martins Neonatology Service. Department of Pediatrics. Hospital Santa Maria. Centro Hospitalar e Universitário Lisboa Norte. Centro Académico de Medicina de Lisboa. Lisboa.
  • Teresa Rodrigues Biomaths Laboratory. Faculty of Medicine. University of Lisbon. Lisbon.
  • Graça Oliveira Neonatology Service. Department of Pediatrics. Hospital Santa Maria. Centro Hospitalar e Universitário Lisboa Norte. Centro Académico de Medicina de Lisboa. Lisboa.
  • Margarida Abrantes Neonatology Service. Department of Pediatrics. Hospital Santa Maria. Centro Hospitalar e Universitário Lisboa Norte. Centro Académico de Medicina de Lisboa. Lisboa.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.20344/amp.10990

Keywords:

Anthropometry, Birth Weight, Gestational Age, Growth Charts, Infant, Newborn, Premature, Portugal

Abstract

Introduction: Birth weight is a major contributor to neonatal morbidity and mortality and is associated with chronic diseases in adulthood. This study aimed to evaluate the use of Intergrowth 21st instead of the Fenton & Kim 2013 growth charts in the diagnosis of small and large for gestational age in a group of Portuguese newborns.
Material and Methods: We conducted an analytical and retrospective study to evaluate birth weight of term and preterm newborns using both growth charts. Groups studied: ‘Term-weeks’ and ‘Term-days’ (term newborns with gestational age in weeks and days, respectively), ‘Preterm-weeks’ and ‘Preterm-days’ (preterm newborns with gestational age in weeks and days, respectively).
Results: A total of 14 056 newborns were included, 6% preterm. Using the Intergrowth 21st growth charts, the groups ‘Term-weeks’ (n = 12 081), ‘Term-days’ (n = 1118), ‘Preterm-weeks’ (n = 617) and ‘Preterm-days’ (n = 240), classified as small for gestational age according to the Fenton & Kim 2013 growth charts were adequate for gestational age in 52.8%, 57.8%, 37.7% and 9.3% respectively; and 9.2%, 9.2%, 5.9% and 0.6% of adequate for gestational age newborns were large for gestational age, respectively. In the ‘Pretermdays’ group, 7.9% of adequate for gestational age newborns were small for gestational age and 22.2% of large for gestational age newborns were adequate for gestational age, all with gestational age below 231 days.
Discussion: The use of the Intergrowth 21st growth charts in this sample resulted in a lower number of newborns being classified as small for gestational age, except in very preterm newborns.
Conclusion: Considering the results obtained, we suggest that Portuguese maternity hospitals use the Intergrowth 21st instead of the Fenton & Kim 2013 growth charts. However, more studies are needed to confirm these results.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Bárbara Marques, Neonatology Service. Department of Pediatrics. Hospital Santa Maria. Centro Hospitalar e Universitário Lisboa Norte. Centro Académico de Medicina de Lisboa. Lisboa.

Autora: ID#8319

Downloads

Published

2020-01-03

How to Cite

1.
Marques B, Martins R, Rodrigues T, Oliveira G, Abrantes M. Performance of Intergrowth 21st Growth Charts in the Diagnosis of Small and Large for Gestational Age in Term and Preterm Newborns. Acta Med Port [Internet]. 2020 Jan. 3 [cited 2024 Nov. 22];33(1):15-21. Available from: https://actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/10990

Issue

Section

Original