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

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Mastella, Lívia Silveira
Data de Publicação: 2016
Outros Autores: Weinert, Letícia Schwerz, Gnielka, Vanessa, Hirakata, Vania Naomi, Oppermann, Maria Lúcia Rocha, Silveiro, Sandra Pinho, Reichelt, Angela de Azevedo Jacob
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UFRGS
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10183/158795
Resumo: Introduction: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated to increased rates of large for gestational age (LGA) 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 females, 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-2_fd88e620955c4a1facaefd7871046f46
oai_identifier_str oai:www.lume.ufrgs.br:10183/158795
network_acronym_str UFRGS-2
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UFRGS
repository_id_str
spelling Mastella, Lívia SilveiraWeinert, Letícia SchwerzGnielka, VanessaHirakata, Vania NaomiOppermann, Maria Lúcia RochaSilveiro, Sandra PinhoReichelt, Angela de Azevedo Jacob2017-05-30T02:38:02Z20162357-9730http://hdl.handle.net/10183/158795001012760Introduction: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated to increased rates of large for gestational age (LGA) 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 females, 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.application/pdfengClinical and biomedical research. Porto Alegre. Vol. 36, n. 4, (2016), p. 192-198Diabetes gestacionalPeso ao nascerIdade gestacionalGráficosGestational diabetesBirth weight chartsLarge for gestational age newbornSmall for gestational age newbornBirth weight classification in gestational diabetes : is there an ideal chart?info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/otherinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Institucional da UFRGSinstname:Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)instacron:UFRGSORIGINAL001012760.pdf001012760.pdfTexto completo (inglês)application/pdf883780http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/158795/1/001012760.pdfdfd790cabafa7f4daf2bb646046a0abcMD51TEXT001012760.pdf.txt001012760.pdf.txtExtracted Texttext/plain30418http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/158795/2/001012760.pdf.txt7b61efe069dad3b9532d1903c6b1d7b3MD5210183/1587952023-05-19 04:00:03.895446oai:www.lume.ufrgs.br:10183/158795Repositório de PublicaçõesPUBhttps://lume.ufrgs.br/oai/requestopendoar:2023-05-19T07:00:03Repositório Institucional da UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)false
dc.title.pt_BR.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?
Mastella, Lívia Silveira
Diabetes gestacional
Peso ao nascer
Idade gestacional
Gráficos
Gestational diabetes
Birth weight charts
Large for gestational age newborn
Small for gestational age newborn
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 Mastella, Lívia Silveira
author_facet Mastella, Lívia Silveira
Weinert, Letícia Schwerz
Gnielka, Vanessa
Hirakata, Vania Naomi
Oppermann, Maria Lúcia Rocha
Silveiro, Sandra Pinho
Reichelt, Angela de Azevedo Jacob
author_role author
author2 Weinert, Letícia Schwerz
Gnielka, Vanessa
Hirakata, Vania Naomi
Oppermann, Maria Lúcia Rocha
Silveiro, Sandra Pinho
Reichelt, Angela de Azevedo Jacob
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Mastella, Lívia Silveira
Weinert, Letícia Schwerz
Gnielka, Vanessa
Hirakata, Vania Naomi
Oppermann, Maria Lúcia Rocha
Silveiro, Sandra Pinho
Reichelt, Angela de Azevedo Jacob
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Diabetes gestacional
Peso ao nascer
Idade gestacional
Gráficos
topic Diabetes gestacional
Peso ao nascer
Idade gestacional
Gráficos
Gestational diabetes
Birth weight charts
Large for gestational age newborn
Small for gestational age newborn
dc.subject.eng.fl_str_mv Gestational diabetes
Birth weight charts
Large for gestational age newborn
Small for gestational age newborn
description Introduction: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated to increased rates of large for gestational age (LGA) 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 females, 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 2016
dc.date.issued.fl_str_mv 2016
dc.date.accessioned.fl_str_mv 2017-05-30T02:38:02Z
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/other
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10183/158795
dc.identifier.issn.pt_BR.fl_str_mv 2357-9730
dc.identifier.nrb.pt_BR.fl_str_mv 001012760
identifier_str_mv 2357-9730
001012760
url http://hdl.handle.net/10183/158795
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.ispartof.pt_BR.fl_str_mv Clinical and biomedical research. Porto Alegre. Vol. 36, n. 4, (2016), p. 192-198
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Institucional da UFRGS
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 Repositório Institucional da UFRGS
collection Repositório Institucional da UFRGS
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/158795/1/001012760.pdf
http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/158795/2/001012760.pdf.txt
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv dfd790cabafa7f4daf2bb646046a0abc
7b61efe069dad3b9532d1903c6b1d7b3
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv MD5
MD5
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1801224916761051136