Intergrowth 21 Versus Fenton 2013 Growth Charts: Congruence in Assessing the Birth Size and the Proportion of Extra-uterine Growth Restriction in Preterm Babies

IF 0.2 Q4 PEDIATRICS
G. Jose, Anilkumar M. Khamkar, P. Pote
{"title":"Intergrowth 21 Versus Fenton 2013 Growth Charts: Congruence in Assessing the Birth Size and the Proportion of Extra-uterine Growth Restriction in Preterm Babies","authors":"G. Jose, Anilkumar M. Khamkar, P. Pote","doi":"10.4103/jcn.jcn_39_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Intergrowth-21st and Fenton 2013 growth charts are used for postnatal growth monitoring in preterms. There is no international consensus on which graph to refer to and why. This study is a local validation, of which graph would be plausible for the Indian population to detect small-for-gestational-age (SGA) and extra-uterine growth restriction (EUGR) babies, abetting in the settlement of this ambiguity.\n \n \n \n The primary objective was to compare the Intergrowth-21st with Fenton 2013 growth charts for birth size classification and to detect the proportion of EUGR in preterms. The secondary objective was to assess the proportion of comorbidities in SGA babies by both these graphs.\n \n \n \n The design of the study was a prospective comparative observational study. All preterm newborns (24–<37 weeks of gestation) admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit of Noble Hospital and Research Center, Maharashtra, were the participants. Weight, length, and head circumference were plotted on Intergrowth 21 and Fenton growth charts at birth and at 4 weeks of age or at 36 weeks of postmenstrual age whichever is later. Corresponding Z-scores and percentiles were calculated electronically from their respective online software.\n \n \n \n the reliability of Intergrowth-21st when compared to Fenton 2013 growth charts in assessing the birth size was better, and detection of the proportion of EUGR in preterm babies was better with Fenton charts.\n \n \n \n A total of 429 preterm babies with a mean gestational age of 33.3 ± 2.4 weeks were included in the study. Fenton (67.1%) overestimated the proportion of EUGR when compared to Intergrowth-21st (18.6%) which was statistically significant (P < 0.001). On the contrary, although the proportion of SGA babies detected was higher with Intergrowth-21st (29.8%) when compared to Fenton (19.6%), there was moderate-to-high statistically significant agreement observed between the two growth charts in detecting SGA babies (Kappa = 0.716, P < 0.001). The proportion of comorbidities did not vary significantly among the SGA babies between the growth charts (P > 0.05).\n \n \n \n Fenton overestimates EUGR when compared to Intergrowth-21st, whereas both the growth charts are equally good in identifying SGA babies with no differences in the comorbidities detected. Intergrowth-21st standards look more pertinent for growth monitoring in the current study setting for Indian preterm babies.\n","PeriodicalId":45332,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Neonatology","volume":"384 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Neonatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jcn.jcn_39_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Intergrowth-21st and Fenton 2013 growth charts are used for postnatal growth monitoring in preterms. There is no international consensus on which graph to refer to and why. This study is a local validation, of which graph would be plausible for the Indian population to detect small-for-gestational-age (SGA) and extra-uterine growth restriction (EUGR) babies, abetting in the settlement of this ambiguity. The primary objective was to compare the Intergrowth-21st with Fenton 2013 growth charts for birth size classification and to detect the proportion of EUGR in preterms. The secondary objective was to assess the proportion of comorbidities in SGA babies by both these graphs. The design of the study was a prospective comparative observational study. All preterm newborns (24–<37 weeks of gestation) admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit of Noble Hospital and Research Center, Maharashtra, were the participants. Weight, length, and head circumference were plotted on Intergrowth 21 and Fenton growth charts at birth and at 4 weeks of age or at 36 weeks of postmenstrual age whichever is later. Corresponding Z-scores and percentiles were calculated electronically from their respective online software. the reliability of Intergrowth-21st when compared to Fenton 2013 growth charts in assessing the birth size was better, and detection of the proportion of EUGR in preterm babies was better with Fenton charts. A total of 429 preterm babies with a mean gestational age of 33.3 ± 2.4 weeks were included in the study. Fenton (67.1%) overestimated the proportion of EUGR when compared to Intergrowth-21st (18.6%) which was statistically significant (P < 0.001). On the contrary, although the proportion of SGA babies detected was higher with Intergrowth-21st (29.8%) when compared to Fenton (19.6%), there was moderate-to-high statistically significant agreement observed between the two growth charts in detecting SGA babies (Kappa = 0.716, P < 0.001). The proportion of comorbidities did not vary significantly among the SGA babies between the growth charts (P > 0.05). Fenton overestimates EUGR when compared to Intergrowth-21st, whereas both the growth charts are equally good in identifying SGA babies with no differences in the comorbidities detected. Intergrowth-21st standards look more pertinent for growth monitoring in the current study setting for Indian preterm babies.
Intergrowth 21 与 Fenton 2013 生长图表:评估早产儿出生大小和宫外生长受限比例的一致性
Intergrowth-21st 和 Fenton 2013 生长图表用于监测早产儿的产后生长。对于参考哪张图表以及为什么要参考这张图,国际上尚未达成共识。本研究是一项本地验证,以确定哪张图表适用于印度人群,可用于检测小于妊娠年龄(SGA)和宫外生长受限(EUGR)的婴儿,从而帮助解决这一模糊问题。 该研究的主要目的是比较 Intergrowth-21st 与 Fenton 2013 生长图表的出生体型分类,并检测早产儿中宫外孕比例。次要目标是通过这两种图表评估 SGA 婴儿的合并症比例。 研究设计为前瞻性比较观察研究。所有早产新生儿(24- 0.05)。 与 Intergrowth-21st 相比,Fenton 高估了 EUGR,而这两种生长曲线图在识别 SGA 婴儿方面效果相当,在发现的合并症方面没有差异。在目前的研究中,Intergrowth-21st 标准似乎更适合用于监测印度早产儿的生长情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: The JCN publishes original articles, clinical reviews and research reports which encompass both basic science and clinical research including randomized trials, observational studies and epidemiology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信