Regional references vs. international standards for assessing weight and length by gestational age in Lithuanian neonates

Introduction There is no global consensus as to which standards are the most appropriate for the assessment of birth weight and length. The study aimed to compare the applicability of regional and global standards to the Lithuanian newborn population by sex and gestational age, based on the prevalence of small or large for gestational age (SGA/LGA). Materials and Methods Analysis was performed on neonatal length and weight data obtained from the Lithuanian Medical Birth Register from 1995 to 2015 (618,235 newborns of 24–42 gestational weeks). Their distributions by gestation and sex were estimated using generalized additive models for location, scale, and shape (GAMLSS), and the results were compared with the INTERGROWTH-21st (IG-21) standard to evaluate the prevalence of SGA/LGA (10th/90th centile) at different gestational ages. Results The difference in median length at term between the local reference and IG-21 was 3 cm–4 cm, while median weight at term differed by 200 g. The Lithuanian median weight at term was higher than in IG-21 by a full centile channel width, while the median length at term was higher by two channel widths. Based on the regional reference, the prevalence rates of SGA/LGA were 9.7%/10.1% for boys and 10.1%/9.9% for girls, close to the nominal 10%. Conversely, based on IG-21, the prevalence of SGA in boys/girls was less than half (4.1%/4.4%), while the prevalence of LGA was double (20.7%/19.1%). Discussion Regional population-based neonatal references represent Lithuanian neonatal weight and length much more accurately than the global standard IG-21 which provides the prevalence rates for SGA/LGA that differ from the true values by a factor of two.

[1]  X. Zong,et al.  Comparison of updated birth weight, length and head circumference charts by gestational age in China with the INTERGROWTH-21st NCSS charts: a population-based study , 2022, World Journal of Pediatrics.

[2]  Marina C. M. Barros,et al.  Growth phenotypes of very low birth weight infants for prediction of neonatal outcomes from a Brazilian cohort: comparison with INTERGROWTH , 2022, Jornal de pediatria.

[3]  T. Cole,et al.  Neonatal head circumference by gestation reflects adaptation to maternal body size: comparison of different standards , 2022, Scientific Reports.

[4]  Rajendra Prasad Anne,et al.  Comparison of Fenton, INTERGROWTH-21st, and Population-Based Growth Charts in Predicting Outcomes of Very Preterm Small-for-Gestational-Age Neonates , 2022, Indian Journal of Pediatrics.

[5]  J. Gardosi,et al.  Customized GROW vs INTERGROWTH-21st birthweight standards to identify small for gestational age associated perinatal outcomes at term , 2021, American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM.

[6]  M. Gissler,et al.  International versus national growth charts for identifying small and large-for-gestational age newborns: A population-based study in 15 European countries , 2021, The Lancet regional health. Europe.

[7]  M. Maciejewski,et al.  Comparison of application of Fenton, Intergrowth-21st and WHO growth charts in a population of Polish newborns , 2021 .

[8]  A. B. Perales,et al.  A comparasion between intergrowth-21 and Spanish neonatal standards applied to very low birth weight infants , 2020 .

[9]  O. Bendor-Samuel,et al.  A Comparison of UK Preterm Anthropometric Charts and INTERGROWTH-21st: Is It Time to Change Growth Charts? , 2020, Neonatology.

[10]  R. Procianoy,et al.  Preterm newborn's postnatal growth patterns: how to evaluate them. , 2019, Jornal de pediatria.

[11]  E. Jensen,et al.  Adverse effects of small for gestational age differ by gestational week among very preterm infants , 2018, Archives of Disease in Childhood: Fetal and Neonatal Edition.

[12]  J. Gardosi,et al.  Customized vs INTERGROWTH‐21st standards for the assessment of birthweight and stillbirth risk at term , 2018, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[13]  J. Gardosi,et al.  Customized growth charts: rationale, validation and clinical benefits. , 2018, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[14]  A. K. Jenum,et al.  Effects of applying universal fetal growth standards in a Scandinavian multi‐ethnic population , 2018, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[15]  W. Fawzi,et al.  Estimates of burden and consequences of infants born small for gestational age in low and middle income countries with INTERGROWTH-21st standard: analysis of CHERG datasets , 2017, British Medical Journal.

[16]  T. Fenton,et al.  INTERGROWTH-21st very preterm size at birth reference charts , 2016, The Lancet.

[17]  D. Altman,et al.  Postnatal growth standards for preterm infants: the Preterm Postnatal Follow-up Study of the INTERGROWTH-21(st) Project. , 2015, The Lancet. Global health.

[18]  José Villar,et al.  International standards for newborn weight, length, and head circumference by gestational age and sex: the Newborn Cross-Sectional Study of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project , 2014, The Lancet.

[19]  M. Marcovecchio,et al.  Progression of Cardio-Metabolic Risk Factors in Subjects Born Small and Large for Gestational Age , 2014, PloS one.

[20]  H. Pan,et al.  Birth weight and longitudinal growth in infants born below 32 weeks’ gestation: a UK population study , 2013, Archives of Disease in Childhood: Fetal and Neonatal Edition.

[21]  A. Chang,et al.  Customised birthweight models: Do they increase identification of at‐risk infants? , 2013, Journal of paediatrics and child health.

[22]  T. Fenton,et al.  A systematic review and meta-analysis to revise the Fenton growth chart for preterm infants , 2013, BMC Pediatrics.

[23]  C. Lees,et al.  Disorders of Fetal Growth and Assessment of Fetal Well‐Being , 2012 .

[24]  J. Tutkuviene,et al.  Body size of newborns in relation to mother's ethnicity and education: a pilot study from Vilnius City (Lithuania), 2005-2010. , 2011, Anthropologischer Anzeiger; Bericht uber die biologisch-anthropologische Literatur.

[25]  M. Kramer,et al.  The case against customised birthweight standards. , 2011, Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology.

[26]  A. M. Euser,et al.  Growth of Preterm Born Children , 2008, Hormone Research in Paediatrics.

[27]  S Cnattingius,et al.  Customised birthweight percentiles: does adjusting for maternal characteristics matter? , 2008, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[28]  P. Casey Growth of low birth weight preterm children. , 2008, Seminars in Perinatology.

[29]  C. Pipper,et al.  [''R"--project for statistical computing]. , 2008, Ugeskrift for laeger.

[30]  L. Moyer-Mileur Anthropometric and laboratory assessment of very low birth weight infants: the most helpful measurements and why. , 2007, Seminars in perinatology.

[31]  Robert A. Rigby,et al.  Using the Box-Cox t distribution in GAMLSS to model skewness and kurtosis , 2006 .

[32]  L. M. Rugolo [Growth and developmental outcomes of the extremely preterm infant]. , 2005, Jornal de pediatria.

[33]  J. Rigo,et al.  Extrauterine growth restriction in very‐low‐birthweight infants , 2004, Acta paediatrica.

[34]  T. Fenton,et al.  A new growth chart for preterm babies: Babson and Benda's chart updated with recent data and a new format , 2003, BMC pediatrics.

[35]  C. Schmid,et al.  Intersite differences in weight growth velocity of extremely premature infants. , 2002, Pediatrics.

[36]  R. Clark,et al.  A New Look at Intrauterine Growth and the Impact of Race, Altitude, and Gender , 2000, Pediatrics.

[37]  C R Bauer,et al.  Longitudinal Growth of Hospitalized Very Low Birth Weight Infants , 1999, Pediatrics.

[38]  S. Leeder,et al.  A population based study , 1993, The Medical journal of Australia.

[39]  T. Cole The LMS method for constructing normalized growth standards. , 1990, European journal of clinical nutrition.