Article Text

Small-for-gestational age and large-for-gestational age thresholds to predict infants at risk of adverse delivery and neonatal outcomes: are current charts adequate? An observational study from the Born in Bradford cohort
  1. T Norris1,
  2. W Johnson2,
  3. D Farrar3,
  4. D Tuffnell4,
  5. J Wright3,
  6. N Cameron1
  1. 1Centre for Global Health and Human Development, School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK
  2. 2MRC Unit for Lifelong Health & Ageing, University College London, London, UK
  3. 3Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Bradford, UK
  4. 4Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Bradford, UK
  1. Correspondence to T Norris; T.Norris2{at}lboro.ac.uk

Abstract

Objectives Construct an ethnic-specific chart and compare the prediction of adverse outcomes using this chart with the clinically recommended UK-WHO and customised birth weight charts using cut-offs for small-for-gestational age (SGA: birth weight <10th centile) and large-for-gestational age (LGA: birth weight >90th centile).

Design Prospective cohort study.

Setting Born in Bradford (BiB) study, UK.

Participants 3980 White British and 4448 Pakistani infants with complete data for gestational age, birth weight, ethnicity, maternal height, weight and parity.

Main outcome measures Prevalence of SGA and LGA, using the three charts and indicators of diagnostic utility (sensitivity, specificity and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC)) of these chart-specific cut-offs to predict delivery and neonatal outcomes and a composite outcome.

Results In White British and Pakistani infants, the prevalence of SGA and LGA differed depending on the chart used. Increased risk of SGA was observed when using the UK-WHO and customised charts as opposed to the ethnic-specific chart, while the opposite was apparent when classifying LGA infants. However, the predictive utility of all three charts to identify adverse clinical outcomes was poor, with only the prediction of shoulder dystocia achieving an AUROC>0.62 on all three charts.

Conclusions Despite being recommended in national clinical guidelines, the UK-WHO and customised birth weight charts perform poorly at identifying infants at risk of adverse neonatal outcomes. Being small or large may increase the risk of an adverse outcome; however, size alone is not sensitive or specific enough with current detection to be useful. However, a significant amount of missing data for some of the outcomes may have limited the power needed to determine true associations.

  • EPIDEMIOLOGY
  • NEONATOLOGY
  • PERINATOLOGY

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Supplementary materials

  • Supplementary Data

    This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Files in this Data Supplement: