Acta medica portuguesa · 2019
Performance of Intergrowth 21st Growth Charts in the Diagnosis of Small and Large for Gestational Age in Term and Preterm Newborns.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Marques Bárbara, Martins Rosa, Rodrigues Teresa, Oliveira Graça, Abrantes Margarida
Аннотация
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.
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.