1976
DOI: 10.1016/0002-9378(76)90748-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A standard of fetal growth for the united states of America

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

14
277
0
10

Year Published

1991
1991
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 843 publications
(301 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
14
277
0
10
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the Mount Sinai WTC cohort had a 2-fold increased risk of small-forgestational-age (SGA) infants, defined as infants with a birth weight below the 10th percentile for gestational age in the nomogram of Brenner et al (1976) (Table 2). This statistically significant difference was still evident after controlling for relevant covariates and potential confounders, including maternal age, parity, race/ethnicity, sex of the infant, and maternal smoking history.…”
Section: Workgroup Report | Consequences Of the Wtc Disastermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the Mount Sinai WTC cohort had a 2-fold increased risk of small-forgestational-age (SGA) infants, defined as infants with a birth weight below the 10th percentile for gestational age in the nomogram of Brenner et al (1976) (Table 2). This statistically significant difference was still evident after controlling for relevant covariates and potential confounders, including maternal age, parity, race/ethnicity, sex of the infant, and maternal smoking history.…”
Section: Workgroup Report | Consequences Of the Wtc Disastermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some are hospital-based, [2][3][4][5][6][7] giving rise to potential selection bias and problems of generalizability, particularly in view of the low 2,6,7 or high 4,5 socioeconomic status or high altitude 2 that characterizes some of the study hospitals; others are prescriptive rather than descriptive, ie, they are based on infants without known risk factors for impaired fetal growth and thus may not be applicable to populations with mixtures of low-and high-risk pregnancies. 8,9 Some are unisex references that fail to account for the known larger birth weight for gestational age in male versus female infants 3,4,6,10 ; others 11,12 go to the opposite extreme and provide curves that are specific for different races, parity, maternal size, and other customizing features for which available data do not permit confident inferences as to whether variations in fetal growth are physiologic or pathologic. Finally, some references are now several decades old and may no longer be pertinent to infants born in more recent years, given the increase in the size of infants born at or near term over the last several decades.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Early references rounded gestational age to the nearest week, [2][3][4][5][6] rather than truncated to completed weeks. Although this practice makes sense from a biological standpoint, it is not consistent with World Health Organization (WHO; International Classification of Diseases) recommendations to base gestational age on the number of completed weeks, and references based on the nearest week cannot be applied to populations complying with the WHO recommendations.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Hadlock formula is the most widely accepted method of estimating fetal weight using a composite sonographic measurement of fetal head, abdomen, and femur [47]. Fetal size is influenced by race, ethnicity, sex, parity, maternal size and genetic factors [48,49]. In the 1990s, Gardosi et al developed a method that used customized birth weights to identify the growth potential for individual fetuses: antenatal growth charts were customized for maternal characteristics including height, weight, ethnic origin and parity [50,51].…”
Section: Definition and Diagnosismentioning
confidence: 99%