Performance of Intergrowth 21st Growth Charts in the Diagnosis of Small and Large for Gestational Age in Term and Preterm Newborns
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2020 |
Outros Autores: | , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
Texto Completo: | https://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/10990 |
Resumo: | 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. |
id |
RCAP_f9da609c886feeac80dd9ef968a646fe |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.www.actamedicaportuguesa.com:article/10990 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository_id_str |
7160 |
spelling |
Performance of Intergrowth 21st Growth Charts in the Diagnosis of Small and Large for Gestational Age in Term and Preterm NewbornsO Desempenho das Curvas do Intergrowth 21st no Diagnóstico de Leve e Grande para a Idade Gestacional em Recém-nascido de Termo e Pré-termoAnthropometryBirth WeightGestational AgeGrowth ChartsInfantNewbornPrematurePortugalAntropometriaGráficos de CrescimentoIdade GestacionalPeso ao NascerPortugalRecém-NascidoRecém-‑Nascido PrematuroIntroduction: 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.Introdução: O peso ao nascer é importante na morbimortalidade neonatal e está relacionado com o desenvolvimento de doenças crónicas na idade adulta. Este estudo pretende avaliar a utilização das curvas de crescimento Intergrowth 21st em alternativa às de Fenton e Kim 2013 no diagnóstico de leve e grande para a idade gestacional num grupo de recém-nascidos Portugueses.Material e Métodos: Estudo analítico e retrospetivo avaliando o peso ao nascer de recém-nascidos de termo e pré-termo segundo ambas as curvas de crescimento. Grupos estudados: ‘Termo-semanas’ e ‘Termo-dias’ (recém-nascidos de termo com idade gestacional em semanas e dias, respetivamente), ‘Pré-termo-semanas’ e ‘Pré-termo-dias’ (recém-nascidos pré-termo com idade gestacional em semanas e dias, respetivamente).Resultados: Foram incluídos 14 056 recém-nascidos, 6% pré-termo. Usando as curvas de crescimento Intergrowth 21st, os grupos ‘Termo-semanas’ (n = 12 081), ‘Termo-dias’ (n = 1118), ‘Pré-termo-semanas’ (n = 617) e ‘Pré-termo-dias’ (n = 240) classificados como leves para a idade gestacional segundo Fenton e Kim 2013 foram classificados como adequados para a idade gestacional em 52,8%, 57,8%, 37,7% e 9,3% respetivamente; e 9,2%, 9,2%, 5,9% e 0,6% dos adequados para a idade gestacional foram classificados como grandes para a idade gestacional, respetivamente. No grupo ‘Pré-termo-dias’, 7,9% dos adequados para a idade gestacional seriam leves para a idade gestacional e 22,2% dos grandes para a idade gestacional seriam adequados para a idade gestacional, todos com idade gestacional abaixo de 231 dias.Discussão: O uso do Intergrowth 21st nesta amostra resultou num menor número de recém-nascidos classificados como leves para a idade gestacional, exceto nos recém-nascidos muito prematuros.Conclusão: Tendo em conta os resultados obtidos, sugerimos que as maternidades portuguesas considerem a utilização das curvas de crescimento Intergrowth 21st em detrimento das de Fenton e Kim 2013. Contudo, mais estudos são necessários para confirmar estes resultados.Ordem dos Médicos2020-01-03info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfapplication/pdfapplication/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.documentapplication/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.documentapplication/pdfapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttps://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/10990oai:ojs.www.actamedicaportuguesa.com:article/10990Acta Médica Portuguesa; Vol. 33 No. 1 (2020): January; 15-21Acta Médica Portuguesa; Vol. 33 N.º 1 (2020): Janeiro; 15-211646-07580870-399Xreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAPenghttps://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/10990https://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/10990/5802https://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/10990/10518https://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/10990/11377https://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/10990/11517https://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/10990/11548https://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/10990/12015https://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/10990/12016Direitos de Autor (c) 2019 Acta Médica Portuguesainfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessMarques, BárbaraMartins, RosaRodrigues, TeresaOliveira, GraçaAbrantes, Margarida2022-12-20T11:06:08Zoai:ojs.www.actamedicaportuguesa.com:article/10990Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T16:19:58.676221Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Performance of Intergrowth 21st Growth Charts in the Diagnosis of Small and Large for Gestational Age in Term and Preterm Newborns O Desempenho das Curvas do Intergrowth 21st no Diagnóstico de Leve e Grande para a Idade Gestacional em Recém-nascido de Termo e Pré-termo |
title |
Performance of Intergrowth 21st Growth Charts in the Diagnosis of Small and Large for Gestational Age in Term and Preterm Newborns |
spellingShingle |
Performance of Intergrowth 21st Growth Charts in the Diagnosis of Small and Large for Gestational Age in Term and Preterm Newborns Marques, Bárbara Anthropometry Birth Weight Gestational Age Growth Charts Infant Newborn Premature Portugal Antropometria Gráficos de Crescimento Idade Gestacional Peso ao Nascer Portugal Recém-Nascido Recém-‑Nascido Prematuro |
title_short |
Performance of Intergrowth 21st Growth Charts in the Diagnosis of Small and Large for Gestational Age in Term and Preterm Newborns |
title_full |
Performance of Intergrowth 21st Growth Charts in the Diagnosis of Small and Large for Gestational Age in Term and Preterm Newborns |
title_fullStr |
Performance of Intergrowth 21st Growth Charts in the Diagnosis of Small and Large for Gestational Age in Term and Preterm Newborns |
title_full_unstemmed |
Performance of Intergrowth 21st Growth Charts in the Diagnosis of Small and Large for Gestational Age in Term and Preterm Newborns |
title_sort |
Performance of Intergrowth 21st Growth Charts in the Diagnosis of Small and Large for Gestational Age in Term and Preterm Newborns |
author |
Marques, Bárbara |
author_facet |
Marques, Bárbara Martins, Rosa Rodrigues, Teresa Oliveira, Graça Abrantes, Margarida |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Martins, Rosa Rodrigues, Teresa Oliveira, Graça Abrantes, Margarida |
author2_role |
author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Marques, Bárbara Martins, Rosa Rodrigues, Teresa Oliveira, Graça Abrantes, Margarida |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Anthropometry Birth Weight Gestational Age Growth Charts Infant Newborn Premature Portugal Antropometria Gráficos de Crescimento Idade Gestacional Peso ao Nascer Portugal Recém-Nascido Recém-‑Nascido Prematuro |
topic |
Anthropometry Birth Weight Gestational Age Growth Charts Infant Newborn Premature Portugal Antropometria Gráficos de Crescimento Idade Gestacional Peso ao Nascer Portugal Recém-Nascido Recém-‑Nascido Prematuro |
description |
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. |
publishDate |
2020 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2020-01-03 |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/10990 oai:ojs.www.actamedicaportuguesa.com:article/10990 |
url |
https://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/10990 |
identifier_str_mv |
oai:ojs.www.actamedicaportuguesa.com:article/10990 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/10990 https://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/10990/5802 https://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/10990/10518 https://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/10990/11377 https://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/10990/11517 https://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/10990/11548 https://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/10990/12015 https://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/10990/12016 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Direitos de Autor (c) 2019 Acta Médica Portuguesa info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Direitos de Autor (c) 2019 Acta Médica Portuguesa |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf application/pdf application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document application/pdf application/pdf application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Ordem dos Médicos |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Ordem dos Médicos |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Acta Médica Portuguesa; Vol. 33 No. 1 (2020): January; 15-21 Acta Médica Portuguesa; Vol. 33 N.º 1 (2020): Janeiro; 15-21 1646-0758 0870-399X reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
collection |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1799130649260457984 |