Centile charts for birthweight for gestational age for Scottish singleton births

Abstract

BackgroundCentile charts of birthweight for gestational age are used to identify low birthweight babies. The charts currently used in Scotland are based on data from the 1970s and require updating given changes in birthweight and in the measurement of gestational age since then.MethodsRoutinely collected data of 100,133 singleton births occurring in Scotland from 1998–2003 were used to construct new centile charts using the LMS method.ResultsCentile charts for birthweight for sex and parity groupings were constructed for singleton birth and compared to existing charts used in Scottish hospitals.ConclusionMean birthweight has been shown to have increased over recent decades. The differences shown between the new and currently used centiles confirm the need for more up-to-date centiles for birthweight for gestational age.

HbA1c and birthweight in women with pre-conception type 1 and type 2 diabetes: a population-based cohort study

“…Second-trimester HbA 1c , although being strongly correlated with third-trimester HbA 1c , was a much weaker predictor of increase in birthweight and lost its effect after adjustment for third-trimester HbA 1c . Although earlier studies have not LGA was defined as birthweight ≥90th centile, and SGA as birthweight <10th centile, according to Scottish birthweight standards (by fetal sex, parity and gestational age) [24] HbA 1c was reported to be a significant predictor of LGA birthweight in a cohort of women with type 1, type 2 and gestational diabetes after adjustment for a number of confounders [30]. In a study of pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes or impaired glucose tolerance, maternal fasting glycaemia during 32-35 weeks was the strongest predictor of accelerated growth in the late third trimester, whereas in the late second and early third trimester and at birth the dominant predictors were previous LGA or maternal obesity [29].…”

“…In our study, microvascular complications (pre-pregnancy retinopathy and/or nephropathy) in women with diabetes were associated with lower birthweight. As there LGA was defined as birthweight ≥90th centile, and SGA as birthweight <10th centile, according to Scottish birthweight standards (by fetal sex, parity and gestational age) [24] b Adjusted model was constructed using backwards stepwise regression. All variables with p<0.5 in the univariate analysis were entered into the model, and then non-significant variables were removed iteratively (according to decreasing p value) until only those with p<0.1 remained, details of which are shown is some evidence that variation in birthweight may be at least partly determined by fetal growth within the first 12 weeks after conception [38], investigation of the association of periconception hyperglycaemia with early fetal growth is crucial for understanding the mechanisms of growth restriction or overgrowth in pregnancies of women with diabetes.…”

“…Separate analyses were performed to examine predictors of LGA and SGA births; LGA (birthweight ≥90th percentile) and SGA (<10th percentile) categories were created based on birthweight standardised for fetal sex, parity and gestational age using Scottish birth population standards [24]. ORs and associated 95% CIs for LGA and SGA were estimated for various predictors using multiple logistic regression; adjusted effects were estimated using a backwards stepwise approach.…”

Birth weight patterns by gestational age in Brazil

“…Here, Brazil perc represents the Brazilian percentiles, while Other perc are the percentiles published in , Zhang and Bowes 1995, Alshimmiri et al 2004) and (Bonellie et al 2008). The institutional ethical research board considered that this study is exempt of approval since the data is publicly available in the Brazilian government site.…”

“…After Lubchenco's article (Lubchenco et al 1963) in the sixties, a number of reference data for assessing birth weight for gestational age have been proposed in the literature , Zhang and Bowes 1995, Alshimmiri et al 2004, Bonellie et al 2008, Alexander et al 1996, Shin et al 2005, Skjaerven et al 2000. Most of them refer to developed countries and none of the underdeveloped or developing country studies are population-based.…”