Comparative analysis of INTERGROWTH-21st and Fenton growth charts for birthweight classification in a multiethnic Asian cohort: a cross-sectional study.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q2 PEDIATRICS
Daniel Chan, Ruther Teo Zheng, Eirena Beh, Thurston Yan Jia Heng, Suresh Chandran, Fabian Yap
{"title":"Comparative analysis of INTERGROWTH-21st and Fenton growth charts for birthweight classification in a multiethnic Asian cohort: a cross-sectional study.","authors":"Daniel Chan, Ruther Teo Zheng, Eirena Beh, Thurston Yan Jia Heng, Suresh Chandran, Fabian Yap","doi":"10.1136/bmjpo-2024-002864","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of using International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st Century (INTERGROWTH-21st) (IG-21) growth standards compared with Fenton growth charts on birthweight classification in a multiethnic newborn cohort in Singapore.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cross-sectional study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Study population included 2541 babies born between 16 December 2019 and 16 March 2020.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>None.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Birthweight classifications of small for gestational age (SGA), appropriate for gestational age (AGA) and large for gestational age (LGA) were assessed using IG-21 and Fenton growth charts. The level of agreement between the two charts was measured using Cohen's kappa coefficient (K).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 2541 neonates, 171 (6.7%) had discordant birthweight classifications. The kappa coefficient indicated moderate overall agreement (K=0.79) between the charts, with decreasing agreement from preterm (K=0.88) to full-term categories (K=0.71). The largest discordance was observed in 98 (60.5%) neonates classified as LGA by IG-21 but AGA by Fenton. In comparison, 60 (2.9%) neonates classified as AGA by IG-21 were SGA by Fenton, while 13 (4.6%) were SGA by IG-21 but AGA by Fenton.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study found discrepancies in birthweight classification between IG-21 and Fenton growth charts, with Fenton charts overclassifying SGA and underclassifying LGA in our study population. These findings suggest the potential need to integrate IG-21 growth standards into local practice to improve accuracy in neonatal growth assessment. Further research is necessary to evaluate the clinical implications of these discordant classifications on neonatal outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":9069,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Paediatrics Open","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11535710/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Paediatrics Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2024-002864","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of using International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st Century (INTERGROWTH-21st) (IG-21) growth standards compared with Fenton growth charts on birthweight classification in a multiethnic newborn cohort in Singapore.

Design: Cross-sectional study.

Setting: KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore.

Patients: Study population included 2541 babies born between 16 December 2019 and 16 March 2020.

Interventions: None.

Main outcome measures: Birthweight classifications of small for gestational age (SGA), appropriate for gestational age (AGA) and large for gestational age (LGA) were assessed using IG-21 and Fenton growth charts. The level of agreement between the two charts was measured using Cohen's kappa coefficient (K).

Results: Of 2541 neonates, 171 (6.7%) had discordant birthweight classifications. The kappa coefficient indicated moderate overall agreement (K=0.79) between the charts, with decreasing agreement from preterm (K=0.88) to full-term categories (K=0.71). The largest discordance was observed in 98 (60.5%) neonates classified as LGA by IG-21 but AGA by Fenton. In comparison, 60 (2.9%) neonates classified as AGA by IG-21 were SGA by Fenton, while 13 (4.6%) were SGA by IG-21 but AGA by Fenton.

Conclusions: The study found discrepancies in birthweight classification between IG-21 and Fenton growth charts, with Fenton charts overclassifying SGA and underclassifying LGA in our study population. These findings suggest the potential need to integrate IG-21 growth standards into local practice to improve accuracy in neonatal growth assessment. Further research is necessary to evaluate the clinical implications of these discordant classifications on neonatal outcomes.

多种族亚洲队列中出生体重分类的 INTERGROWTH-21st 和 Fenton 生长图表比较分析:一项横断面研究。
研究目的本研究的目的是评估在新加坡的一个多种族新生儿队列中,使用 21 世纪国际胎儿和新生儿生长联合会(INTERGROWTH-21st)(IG-21)生长标准与芬顿生长图表相比,对出生体重分类的影响:设计:横断面研究:研究地点:新加坡 KK 妇女与儿童医院:研究人群包括2019年12月16日至2020年3月16日期间出生的2541名婴儿:主要结果测量使用 IG-21 和 Fenton 生长图表评估胎龄小(SGA)、胎龄适宜(AGA)和胎龄大(LGA)的出生体重分类。使用科恩卡帕系数(K)测量两个图表之间的一致程度:结果:在 2541 名新生儿中,有 171 名(6.7%)的出生体重分类不一致。卡帕系数显示图表之间的总体一致性为中等(K=0.79),从早产(K=0.88)到足月(K=0.71),一致性逐渐降低。最大的不一致出现在 98 个(60.5%)被 IG-21 诊断为 LGA 但被 Fenton 诊断为 AGA 的新生儿身上。相比之下,60 个(2.9%)被 IG-21 归类为 AGA 的新生儿被 Fenton 归类为 SGA,而 13 个(4.6%)被 IG-21 归类为 SGA 但被 Fenton 归类为 AGA:研究发现,IG-21 和 Fenton 生长图表在出生体重分类方面存在差异,在我们的研究人群中,Fenton 图表对 SGA 的分类过高,而对 LGA 的分类过低。这些研究结果表明,可能需要将 IG-21 生长标准纳入当地实践,以提高新生儿生长评估的准确性。有必要开展进一步研究,以评估这些不一致的分类对新生儿预后的临床影响。
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
BMJ Paediatrics Open
BMJ Paediatrics Open Medicine-Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
3.80%
发文量
124
×
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