Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Defining small-for-gestational-age: prescriptive versus descriptive birthweight standards

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Pediatrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Descriptive population-based birthweight standards possess low sensitivity in detecting infants with growth impairment. A prescriptive birthweight standard based on a ‘healthy’ subpopulation without risk factors for intrauterine growth restriction might be superior. We created two birthweight standards based on live born, singleton infants with gestational age 24–42 weeks and born in The Netherlands between 2000 and 2007. Inclusion criteria for the prescriptive birthweight standard were restricted to infants without congenital malformations, born to healthy mothers after uncomplicated pregnancies. We defined small-for-gestational-age (SGA) as birthweight <10th percentile and assessed the ability of both standards to predict adverse neonatal outcomes. The prescriptive birthweight standard identified significantly more infants as SGA, up to 38.0 % at 29 weeks gestation. SGA infants classified according to both standards as well as those classified according to the prescriptive birthweight standard only, were at increased risk of both major and minor adverse neonatal outcomes. The prescriptive birthweight standard was both more sensitive and less specific, with a maximum increase in sensitivity predicting bronchopulmonary dysplasia (+42.6 %) and a maximum decrease in specificity predicting intraventricular haemorrhage (−26.9 %) in infants aged 28–31 weeks.

Conclusion: Prescriptive birthweight standards could improve identification of infants born SGA and at risk of adverse neonatal outcomes.

What is Known:

• Descriptive birthweight standards possess low sensitivity in detecting growth restricted infants at risk of adverse neonatal outcomes.

• Prescriptive standards could improve identification of very preterm small-for-gestational-age (SGA) infants at risk of intraventricular haemorrhage.

What is New:

• Prescriptive standards identify more preterm and term SGA infants at risk of major adverse neonatal outcomes.

• Late preterm and term SGA infants classified according to the prescriptive standard are at increased risk of minor adverse neonatal outcomes with potentially harmful implications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

aOR:

Adjusted odds ratio

BPD:

Bronchopulmonary dysplasia

cPVL:

Cystic periventricular leukomalacia

GA:

Gestational age

HIE:

Hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy

IRDS:

Infant respiratory distress syndrome

IUGR:

Intrauterine growth restriction

IVH:

Intraventricular haemorrhage

NEC:

Necrotising enterocolitis

PRN:

The Netherlands Perinatal Registry

ROP:

Retinopathy of prematurity

SGA:

Small-for-gestational-age

References

  1. Barker DJ (2006) Adult consequences of fetal growth restriction. Clin Obstet Gynecol 49:270–283

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Battaglia FC, Lubchenco LO (1967) A practical classification of newborn infants by weight and gestational age. J Pediatr 71:159–163

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bell MJ, Ternberg JL, Feigin RD, Keating JP, Marshall R, Barton L, Brotherton T (1978) Neonatal necrotizing enterocolitis. Therapeutic decisions based upon clinical staging. Ann Surg 187:1–7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Bertino E, Milani S, Fabris C, De Curtis M (2007) Neonatal anthropometric charts: what they are, what they are not. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 92:F7–F10

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Burkhardt T, Schäffer L, Zimmermann R, Kurmanavicius J (2008) Newborn weight charts underestimate the incidence of low birthweight in preterm infants. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199:139.e1–139.e6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Campbell MK, Cartier S, Xie B, Kouniakis G, Huang W, Han V (2012) Determinants of small for gestational age birth at term. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 26:525–533

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Clausson B, Gardosi J, Francis A, Cnattingius S (2001) Perinatal outcome in SGA births defined by customised versus population-based birthweight standards. BJOG 108:830–834

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cole TJ (1990) The LMS method for constructing normalized growth standards. Eur J Clin Nutr 44:45–60

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Committee on Obstetric Practice, ACOG; American Academy of Pediatrcis; Committee on Fetus and Newborn, ACOG (2006) ACOG Committee Opinion Number 333, May 2006 (replaces No. 174, July 1996): the Apgar score. Obstet Gynecol 107:1209–1212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Damodaram M, Story L, Kulinskaya E, Rutherford M, Kumar S (2011) Early adverse perinatal complications in preterm growth-restricted fetuses. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 51:204–209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. De Vries LS, Eken P, Dubowitz LM (1992) The spectrum of leukomalacia using cranial ultrasound. Behav Brain Res 49:1–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ferdynus C, Quantin C, Abrahamowicz M, Burguet A, Sagot P, Gouyon JB (2013) Comparison of the ability of alternative birthweight and fetal weight standards to identify preterm newborns at increased risk of perinatal death. BJOG 120:1456–1464

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ferdynus C, Quantin C, Abrahamowicz M, Platt R, Burguet A, Sagot P, Binquet C, Gouyon JB (2009) Can birth weight standards based on healthy populations improve the identification of small-for-gestational-age newborns at risk of adverse neonatal outcomes? Pediatrics 123:723–730

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gardosi J, Chang A, Kalyan B, Sahota D, Symonds EM (1992) Customised antenatal growth charts. Lancet 339:283–287

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Giedion A, Haefliger H, Dangel P (1973) Acute pulmonary X-ray changes in hyaline membrane disease treated with artificial ventilation and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEP). Pediatr Radiol 1:145–152

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gilbert WM, Danielsen B (2003) Pregnancy outcomes associated with intrauterine growth restriction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 188:1596–1599, discussion 1599–1601

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hawass NE (1997) Comparing the sensitivities and specificities of two diagnostic procedures performed on the same group of patients. Br J Radiol 70:360–366

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hemming K, Bonellie S, Hutton JL (2011) Fetal growth and birthweight standards as screening tools: methods for evaluating performance. BJOG 118:1477–1483

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hendrix N, Berghella V (2008) Non-placental causes of intrauterine growth restriction. Semin Perinatol 32:161–165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hutcheon JA, Zhang X, Platt RW, Cnattingius S, Kramer MS (2011) The case against customised birthweight standards. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 25:11–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. International Committee for the Classification of Retinopathy of Prematurity (2005) The international classification of retinopathy of prematurity revisited. Arch Ophthalmol 123:991–999

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Joseph KS, Kramer MS, Allen AC, Mery LS, Platt RW, Wen SW (2001) Implausible birth weight for gestational age. Am J Epidemiol 153:110–113

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Karlberg J, Albertsson-Wikland K (1995) Growth in full-term small-for-gestational-age infants: from birth to final height. Pediatr Res 38:733–739

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kramer MS (1987) Determinants of low birth weight: methodological assessment and meta-analysis. Bull World Health Organ 65:663–737

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Lackman F, Capewell V, Richardson B, daSilva O, Gagnon R (2001) The risks of spontaneous preterm delivery and perinatal mortality in relation to size at birth according to fetal versus neonatal growth standards. Am J Obstet Gynecol 184:946–953

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lawrence C, Fryer JG, Karlberg P, Niklasson A, Ericson A (1989) Modelling of reference values for size at birth. Acta Paediatr Scand Suppl 350:55–69

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Leitner Y, Fattal-Valevski A, Geva R, Eshel R, Toledano-Alhadef H, Rotstein M, Bassan H, Radianu B, Bitchonsky O, Jaffa AJ, Harel S (2007) Neurodevelopmental outcome of children with intrauterine growth retardation: a longitudinal, 10-year prospective study. J Child Neurol 22:580–587

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Løhaugen GC, Østgård HF, Andreassen S, Jacobsen GW, Vik T, Brubakk AM, Skranes J, Martinussen M (2013) Small for gestational age and intrauterine growth restriction decreases cognitive function in young adults. J Pediatr 163:447–453

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Marconi AM, Ronzoni S, Bozzetti P, Vailati S, Morabito A, Battaglia FC (2008) Comparison of fetal and neonatal growth curves in detecting growth restriction. Obstet Gynecol 112:1227–1234

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Maulik D (2006) Fetal growth restriction: the etiology. Clin Obstet Gynecol 49:228–235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. McCowan L, Horgan RP (2009) Risk factors for small for gestational age infants. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 23:779–793

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. McIntire DD, Bloom SL, Casey BM, Leveno KJ (1999) Birth weight in relation to morbidity and mortality among newborn infants. N Engl J Med 340:1234–1238

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Niklasson A, Ericson A, Fryer JG, Karlberg J, Lawrence C, Karlberg P (1991) An update of the Swedish reference standards for weight, length and head circumference at birth for given gestational age (1977–1981). Acta Paediatr Scand 80:756–762

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Pallotto EK, Kilbride HW (2006) Perinatal outcome and later implications of intrauterine growth restriction. Clin Obstet Gynecol 49:257–269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Papile LA, Burstein J, Burstein R, Koffler H (1978) Incidence and evolution of subependymal and intraventricular hemorrhage: a study of infants with birth weight less than 1,500 gm. J Pediatr 92:529–534

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Rooth G, Meirik O, Karlberg P (1985) Estimation of the “normal” growth of Swedish infants at term. Preliminary report. Acta Paediatr Scand Suppl 319:76–79

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Sarnat HB, Sarnat MS (1976) Neonatal encephalopathy following fetal distress. A clinical and electroencephalographic study. Arch Neurol 33:696–705

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Brouwers HAA, Bruinse HW, Dijs-Elsinga J, van Huis AM, de Miranda E, Ravelli ACJ, Tamminga P, de Winter GA (2013) Stichting Perinatale Registratie Nederland Grote Lijnen 1999–2012 (The Netherlands Perinatal Registry Trends 1999–2012). The Netherlands Perinatal Registry, Utrecht

  39. Tsai LY, Chen YL, Tsou KL, Mu SC, Taiwan Premature Infant Developmental Collaborative Study Group (2015) The impact of small-for-gestational-age on neonatal outcome among very-low-birth-weight infants. Pediatr Neonatol 56:101–107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Visser GH, Eilers PH, Elferink-Stinkens PM, Merkus HM, Wit JM (2009) New Dutch reference curves for birthweight by gestational age. Early Hum Dev 85:737–744

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Yu VY, Upadhyay A (2004) Neonatal management of the growth-restricted infant. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 9:403–409

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Zaw W, Gagnon R, da Silva O (2003) The risks of adverse neonatal outcome among preterm small for gestational age infants according to neonatal versus fetal growth standards. Pediatrics 111:1273–1277

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Zhang J, Merialdi M, Platt LD, Kramer MS (2010) Defining normal and abnormal fetal growth: promises and challenges. Am J Obstet Gynecol 202:522–528

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Zhang X, Mumford SL, Cnattingius S, Schisterman EF, Kramer MS (2010) Reduced birthweight in short or primiparous mothers: physiological or pathological? BJOG 117:1248–1254

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank The Netherlands Perinatal Registry (PRN) for granting us unlimited access to the required data.

Authors’ contributions

RvL and MH conceived the idea of the manuscript. LH, CH, MH, and RvL were responsible for the study concept and design. LH, CH, and HS analysed the data. LH wrote the initial draft of the manuscript, which was revised by LH, CH, MH, HS, and RvL. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Princess Amalia Department of Paediatrics, Department of Neonatology, P.O. Box 10400, 8000 GK, Isala, Zwolle, The Netherlands

    Liset Hoftiezer & Richard A. van Lingen

  2. Perined, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Chantal W. P. M. Hukkelhoven

  3. Amalia Children’s Hospital, Department of Neonatology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Marije Hogeveen

  4. PHARMO Institute for Drug Outcomes Research, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Huub M. P. M. Straatman

Authors
  1. Liset Hoftiezer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chantal W. P. M. Hukkelhoven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marije Hogeveen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Huub M. P. M. Straatman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Richard A. van Lingen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Liset Hoftiezer.

Ethics declarations

Ethical standards

The manuscript does not contain clinical studies or patient data.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Funding

No funding was secured for this study.

Additional information

Communicated by Patrick Van Reempts

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Appendix 1

(PDF 272 kb)

Figure S1

Smoothed versus empirical descriptive and prescriptive percentiles for boys (A resp. B) and girls (C resp. D) (PDF 197 kb)

Figure S2

Test characteristics for infants aged 24+0-25+6 and 37+0-39+0 weeks. BW birthweight (PDF 38 kb)

Table S1

(DOCX 23 kb)

Table S2

(DOCX 22 kb)

Table S3

(DOCX 21 kb)

Table S4

(DOCX 20 kb)

Table S5

(DOCX 20 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hoftiezer, L., Hukkelhoven, C.W.P.M., Hogeveen, M. et al. Defining small-for-gestational-age: prescriptive versus descriptive birthweight standards. Eur J Pediatr 175, 1047–1057 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-016-2740-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-016-2740-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation