Birth weight classification in gestational diabetes: is there an ideal chart?
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2017 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Clinical and Biomedical Research |
Texto Completo: | https://seer.ufrgs.br/index.php/hcpa/article/view/68992 |
Resumo: | Introduction: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated to increased rates of large for gestational age newborns and macrosomia. Several charts are used to classify birth weight. Is there an ideal chart to classify newborns of GDM mothers?Methods: We evaluated adequacy of birth weight of 332 neonates born to GDM mothers at Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Brazil. Newborns were classified according to gestational age as small (SGA), adequate or large (LGA) based on four charts: Alexander, Pedreira, INTERGROWTH 21st Project and SINASC-2012. The latter was built using data from a large national registry of 2012, the Born Alive National Surveillance System (Sistema de Informações de Nascidos Vivos – SINASC), which included 2.905,789 birth certificates. Frequencies of SGA and LGA and Kappa agreement were calculated.Results: In non-gender adjusted curves, SGA rates (95% confidence interval) varied from 8% (5-11) to 9% (6-13); LGA rates, from 11% (8-15) to 17% (13-21). For males, SGA rates varied from 3% (1-6%) to 6% (3-11%), and LGA rates, from 18% (13-24%) to 31% (24-38%); for female, SGA rates were from 3% (1-7%) to 10% (6-16%) and LGA rates, from 11% (6-16%) to 19% (13-26%). Kappa results were: ALEXANDER vs. SINASC-2012: 0.80 (0.73-0.88); INTERGROWTH 21st vs. SINASC-2012 (adjusted by sex): 0.62 (0.53-0.71); INTERGROWTH 21st vs. PEDREIRA: 0.71 (0.62-0.79); SINASC-2012 (by sex) vs. PEDREIRA: 0.86 (0.79-0.93).Conclusions: Misclassification has to be taken into account when evaluating newborns of GDM mothers, as LGA rates can almost double depending on the chart used to classify birth weight. |
id |
UFRGS-20_79c4519bf11495ac3707a2f073272f2c |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:seer.ufrgs.br:article/68992 |
network_acronym_str |
UFRGS-20 |
network_name_str |
Clinical and Biomedical Research |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Birth weight classification in gestational diabetes: is there an ideal chart?gestational diabetesbirth weight chartslarge for gestational age newbornsmall for gestational age newbornEndocrinologyObstetrics and GynaecologyIntroduction: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated to increased rates of large for gestational age newborns and macrosomia. Several charts are used to classify birth weight. Is there an ideal chart to classify newborns of GDM mothers?Methods: We evaluated adequacy of birth weight of 332 neonates born to GDM mothers at Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Brazil. Newborns were classified according to gestational age as small (SGA), adequate or large (LGA) based on four charts: Alexander, Pedreira, INTERGROWTH 21st Project and SINASC-2012. The latter was built using data from a large national registry of 2012, the Born Alive National Surveillance System (Sistema de Informações de Nascidos Vivos – SINASC), which included 2.905,789 birth certificates. Frequencies of SGA and LGA and Kappa agreement were calculated.Results: In non-gender adjusted curves, SGA rates (95% confidence interval) varied from 8% (5-11) to 9% (6-13); LGA rates, from 11% (8-15) to 17% (13-21). For males, SGA rates varied from 3% (1-6%) to 6% (3-11%), and LGA rates, from 18% (13-24%) to 31% (24-38%); for female, SGA rates were from 3% (1-7%) to 10% (6-16%) and LGA rates, from 11% (6-16%) to 19% (13-26%). Kappa results were: ALEXANDER vs. SINASC-2012: 0.80 (0.73-0.88); INTERGROWTH 21st vs. SINASC-2012 (adjusted by sex): 0.62 (0.53-0.71); INTERGROWTH 21st vs. PEDREIRA: 0.71 (0.62-0.79); SINASC-2012 (by sex) vs. PEDREIRA: 0.86 (0.79-0.93).Conclusions: Misclassification has to be taken into account when evaluating newborns of GDM mothers, as LGA rates can almost double depending on the chart used to classify birth weight.HCPA/FAMED/UFRGS2017-01-17info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionPeer-reviewed ArticleAvaliado por Paresapplication/pdfhttps://seer.ufrgs.br/index.php/hcpa/article/view/68992Clinical & Biomedical Research; Vol. 36 No. 4 (2016): Clinical and Biomedical ResearchClinical and Biomedical Research; v. 36 n. 4 (2016): Clinical and Biomedical Research2357-9730reponame:Clinical and Biomedical Researchinstname:Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)instacron:UFRGSenghttps://seer.ufrgs.br/index.php/hcpa/article/view/68992/pdfCopyright (c) 2017 Clinical and Biomedical Researchinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessSilveira Mastella, LiviaWeinert, Letícia SchwertzGnielka, VanessaHirakata, Vânia NaomiOppermann, Maria Lúcia RochaSilveiro, Sandra PinhoReichelt, Angela Jacob2024-01-19T14:25:16Zoai:seer.ufrgs.br:article/68992Revistahttps://www.seer.ufrgs.br/index.php/hcpaPUBhttps://seer.ufrgs.br/index.php/hcpa/oai||cbr@hcpa.edu.br2357-97302357-9730opendoar:2024-01-19T14:25:16Clinical and Biomedical Research - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Birth weight classification in gestational diabetes: is there an ideal chart? |
title |
Birth weight classification in gestational diabetes: is there an ideal chart? |
spellingShingle |
Birth weight classification in gestational diabetes: is there an ideal chart? Silveira Mastella, Livia gestational diabetes birth weight charts large for gestational age newborn small for gestational age newborn Endocrinology Obstetrics and Gynaecology |
title_short |
Birth weight classification in gestational diabetes: is there an ideal chart? |
title_full |
Birth weight classification in gestational diabetes: is there an ideal chart? |
title_fullStr |
Birth weight classification in gestational diabetes: is there an ideal chart? |
title_full_unstemmed |
Birth weight classification in gestational diabetes: is there an ideal chart? |
title_sort |
Birth weight classification in gestational diabetes: is there an ideal chart? |
author |
Silveira Mastella, Livia |
author_facet |
Silveira Mastella, Livia Weinert, Letícia Schwertz Gnielka, Vanessa Hirakata, Vânia Naomi Oppermann, Maria Lúcia Rocha Silveiro, Sandra Pinho Reichelt, Angela Jacob |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Weinert, Letícia Schwertz Gnielka, Vanessa Hirakata, Vânia Naomi Oppermann, Maria Lúcia Rocha Silveiro, Sandra Pinho Reichelt, Angela Jacob |
author2_role |
author author author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Silveira Mastella, Livia Weinert, Letícia Schwertz Gnielka, Vanessa Hirakata, Vânia Naomi Oppermann, Maria Lúcia Rocha Silveiro, Sandra Pinho Reichelt, Angela Jacob |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
gestational diabetes birth weight charts large for gestational age newborn small for gestational age newborn Endocrinology Obstetrics and Gynaecology |
topic |
gestational diabetes birth weight charts large for gestational age newborn small for gestational age newborn Endocrinology Obstetrics and Gynaecology |
description |
Introduction: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated to increased rates of large for gestational age newborns and macrosomia. Several charts are used to classify birth weight. Is there an ideal chart to classify newborns of GDM mothers?Methods: We evaluated adequacy of birth weight of 332 neonates born to GDM mothers at Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Brazil. Newborns were classified according to gestational age as small (SGA), adequate or large (LGA) based on four charts: Alexander, Pedreira, INTERGROWTH 21st Project and SINASC-2012. The latter was built using data from a large national registry of 2012, the Born Alive National Surveillance System (Sistema de Informações de Nascidos Vivos – SINASC), which included 2.905,789 birth certificates. Frequencies of SGA and LGA and Kappa agreement were calculated.Results: In non-gender adjusted curves, SGA rates (95% confidence interval) varied from 8% (5-11) to 9% (6-13); LGA rates, from 11% (8-15) to 17% (13-21). For males, SGA rates varied from 3% (1-6%) to 6% (3-11%), and LGA rates, from 18% (13-24%) to 31% (24-38%); for female, SGA rates were from 3% (1-7%) to 10% (6-16%) and LGA rates, from 11% (6-16%) to 19% (13-26%). Kappa results were: ALEXANDER vs. SINASC-2012: 0.80 (0.73-0.88); INTERGROWTH 21st vs. SINASC-2012 (adjusted by sex): 0.62 (0.53-0.71); INTERGROWTH 21st vs. PEDREIRA: 0.71 (0.62-0.79); SINASC-2012 (by sex) vs. PEDREIRA: 0.86 (0.79-0.93).Conclusions: Misclassification has to be taken into account when evaluating newborns of GDM mothers, as LGA rates can almost double depending on the chart used to classify birth weight. |
publishDate |
2017 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2017-01-17 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion Peer-reviewed Article Avaliado por Pares |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://seer.ufrgs.br/index.php/hcpa/article/view/68992 |
url |
https://seer.ufrgs.br/index.php/hcpa/article/view/68992 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://seer.ufrgs.br/index.php/hcpa/article/view/68992/pdf |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2017 Clinical and Biomedical Research info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2017 Clinical and Biomedical Research |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
HCPA/FAMED/UFRGS |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
HCPA/FAMED/UFRGS |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Clinical & Biomedical Research; Vol. 36 No. 4 (2016): Clinical and Biomedical Research Clinical and Biomedical Research; v. 36 n. 4 (2016): Clinical and Biomedical Research 2357-9730 reponame:Clinical and Biomedical Research instname:Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) instacron:UFRGS |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) |
instacron_str |
UFRGS |
institution |
UFRGS |
reponame_str |
Clinical and Biomedical Research |
collection |
Clinical and Biomedical Research |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Clinical and Biomedical Research - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
||cbr@hcpa.edu.br |
_version_ |
1799767054127988736 |