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

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Marques, Bárbara
Data de Publicação: 2020
Outros Autores: Martins, Rosa, Rodrigues, Teresa, Oliveira, Graça, Abrantes, Margarida
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