Gestational Age Assessment with Anthropometric Parameters in Newborns.

Objectives We sought to evaluate the relationship between gestational age (GA) and neonatal anthropometric parameters, namely head circumference (HC) and crown-heel length (CHL). Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study in a tertiary care hospital with 530 consecutively live-born newborns of 28-41 weeks gestation. Anthropometric parameters were measured after three days of life. We summarized the variables using descriptive statistics, including percentile values, and the strength of association was determined through correlation analysis. The correlation was strong for HC and CHL, and linear regression analysis was done to develop predictive equations. Results HC and CHL correlated well with GA with r-values of 0.863 and 0.859, respectively. The regression equations derived were GA (week) = 9.2671 + [0.8616 × HC (cm)] and GA (weeks) = 7.2489 + [0.621 × CHL (cm)]. Multiple regression gave the relationship as GA (weeks) = 4.0244 + [0.4058 × HC (cm)] + [0.4249 × CHL (cm)]. Application of this multiple regression equation to a test cohort of 30 babies for prediction of GA gave a mean margin of error of 2.9%, indicating that it is a satisfactory tool for prediction. Conclusions HC and CHL can be used as simple tools for predicting GA in babies when this is in doubt. This can help in identification of high-risk newborns at primary care level without recourse to imaging modalities.

[1]  R. Kumar,et al.  Estimation of Gestational Age, Using Neonatal Anthropometry: A Cross-sectional Study in India , 2013, Journal of health, population, and nutrition.

[2]  Rupesh Masand,et al.  A Simple Method For Assessment of Gestational Age in Neonates Using Head Circumference , 2012 .

[3]  J. Ngirabega,et al.  [Reliability of anthropometric measurements performed by community nutrition workers in a community-based pediatric growth-monitoring program in rural Rwanda]. , 2010, Revue d'épidémiologie et de santé publique.

[4]  Peter Dickson,et al.  The reliability of routine anthropometric data collected by health workers: a cross-sectional study. , 2009, International journal of nursing studies.

[5]  C. Sreeramareddy,et al.  Anthropometric surrogates to identify low birth weight Nepalese newborns: a hospital-based study , 2008, BMC pediatrics.

[6]  L. Mullany,et al.  A low cost, colour coded, hand held spring scale accurately categorises birth weight in low resource settings , 2006, Archives of Disease in Childhood.

[7]  T. Wardlaw,et al.  Monitoring low birth weight: an evaluation of international estimates and an updated estimation procedure. , 2005, Bulletin of the World Health Organization.

[8]  D. Savitz,et al.  Comparison of pregnancy dating by last menstrual period, ultrasound scanning, and their combination. , 2002, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[9]  M. Georgieff,et al.  Mid-arm circumference and mid-arm/head circumference ratios: standard curves for anthropometric assessment of neonatal nutritional status. , 1986, The Journal of pediatrics.

[10]  A. Rahimi-Foroushani,et al.  Concentrations of Serum Zinc, Hemoglobin and Ferritin among Pregnant Women and their Effects on Birth Outcomes in Kashan, Iran. , 2012, Oman medical journal.

[11]  W. Carlo The High-Risk Infant , 2011 .

[12]  M. Reichenheim,et al.  [Validity of neonatal clinical assessment for estimation of gestational age: comparison of new ++Ballard+ score with date of last menstrual period and ultrasonography]. , 2000, Cadernos de saude publica.