Birth weight classification in gestational diabetes: is there an ideal chart?

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Silveira Mastella, Livia
Data de Publicação: 2017
Outros Autores: Weinert, Letícia Schwertz, Gnielka, Vanessa, Hirakata, Vânia Naomi, Oppermann, Maria Lúcia Rocha, Silveiro, Sandra Pinho, Reichelt, Angela Jacob
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