The performance of various anthropometric assessment methods for predicting low birth weight in adolescent pregnant women

Barros, Denise Cavalcante de; Saunders, Cláudia; Santos, Marta Maria Antonieta de Souza; Lí­bera, Beatriz Della; Gama, Silvana Granado Nogueira da; Leal, María do Carmo

doi:10.1590/1809-4503201400030015

Cited by 4 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Se identificaron 2601 referencias. La revisión sistemática incluyó cinco estudios que cumplieron los criterios de selección previamente establecidos (11)(12)(13)(14)(15) (Figura 1).…”

Section: Resultsunclassified

“…Los estudios se desarrollaron en establecimientos de salud públicos de los Estados Unidos (12) , Brasil (13,14) , Italia (11) y China (15) . Cuatro estudios utilizaron un diseño de cohorte retrospectiva (12,15) y uno de cohorte prospectiva (11) .…”

Section: Características De Los Estudios Incluidosunclassified

“…Un estudio fue desarrollado en adolescentes, con un promedio de edad de 17,6 años (13) , y se desarrollaron cuatro estudios en adultas, entre 26,5 y 31,7 años en promedio (11,12,14,15) . Dos estudios reportaron mayor predominancia de gestantes de raza blanca (12,13) , y tres estudios no reportaron la raza de la población de estudio (11,14,15) . En los dos estudios que reportaron el sexo del recién nacido, se observó una proporción similar entre varones y mujeres (11,15) .…”

Section: Características De Los Estudios Incluidosunclassified

“…Bajo peso al nacer Los artículos de Barros (13) , Carvallo (14) y Li (15) reportan que la prevalencia de BPN varió entre 2,2% y 10,8%. La sensibilidad varió entre 16,9% en población china (15) , y 62,8% y 74% en población brasileña (13,14) . La especificidad varió entre 61,7% y 68,3% en población brasileña (13,14) , y un 90,3% en población china (15) .…”

Section: Efecto De Las Intervencionesunclassified

See 3 more Smart Citations

Ganancia de peso gestacional como predictor de macrosomía y bajo peso al nacer: revisión sistemática

Santos-Antonio

Alvis-Chirinos

Aguilar-Esenarro

et al. 2020

Rev Peru Med Exp Salud Publica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objetivos: Evaluar la capacidad predictiva de las recomendaciones de ganancia de peso gestacional respecto del bajo peso al nacer (BPN) y la macrosomía neonatal, propuestas por el Institute of Medicine (IOM) y el Centro Latinoamericano de Perinatología (CLAP). Materiales y métodos: La búsqueda bibliográfica se realizó en PubMed, Embase (vía Ovid), Cochrane Library, EBSCOhost, Scopus, LILACS y SciELO. La calidad metodológica se evaluó utilizando QUADAS 2. Resultados: Se obtuvieron 1192 artículos, cinco cumplieron los criterios de inclusión, ningún estudio evaluó las recomendaciones CLAP. La sensibilidad y especificidad para predecir el BPN y la macrosomía variaron largamente según el país de realización del estudio. En las cohortes de América Latina, la sensibilidad para predecir el BPN varió entre 62,8% y 74%, y la especificidad, entre 61,7% y 68%, mientras que la sensibilidad para predecir macrosomía fue 28,8%, y la especificidad, 43,8%. En la mayoría de estudios el valor predictivo positivo fue inferior al 25%, y el valor predictivo negativo, superior al 90%. La mayoría de los estudios tuvo alto riesgo de sesgo y problemas de aplicabilidad en la selección de pacientes. Conclusiones: La limitada calidad metodológica y representatividad de las cohortes estudiadas, probables factores de confusión no ajustados y modestos valores de sensibilidad y especificidad sugieren la necesidad de desarrollar estudios para establecer recomendaciones que se ajusten a las características epidemiológicas de la población peruana.

show abstract

“…Se identificaron 2601 referencias. La revisión sistemática incluyó cinco estudios que cumplieron los criterios de selección previamente establecidos (11)(12)(13)(14)(15) (Figura 1).…”

Section: Resultsunclassified

Section: Características De Los Estudios Incluidosunclassified

Section: Efecto De Las Intervencionesunclassified

See 2 more Smart Citations

Ganancia de peso gestacional como predictor de macrosomía y bajo peso al nacer: revisión sistemática

Santos-Antonio

Alvis-Chirinos

Aguilar-Esenarro

et al. 2020

Rev Peru Med Exp Salud Publica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…l [ 8 ], who described the discordance between CDC and IOM criteria to classify pre-pregnancy BMI in pregnant adolescents; and the study performed by Barrios et al . [ 23 ], in a group of Brazilian pregnant adolescents, Barrios et al . assessed pre-pregnancy BMI using WHO, IOM and the Ministry of Health of Brazil criteria and concluded that criteria from the Ministry of Health of Brazil should be used to assess pregnant adolescents.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pre-pregnancy body mass index classification and gestational weight gain on neonatal outcomes in adolescent mothers: A follow-up study

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Institute of Medicine gestational weight gain recommendations are based on body mass index (BMI) status using adult cut-off points for women of all ages, even though adolescents have specific criteria, like WHO and CDC, so adolescents can receive inadequate weight gain recommendations. Objectives: To estimate the proportion of classification disparity between the three criteria (WHO, CDC and IOM) of pre-pregnancy BMI status; and to analyze neonatal outcomes according to weight gain recommendation based on pre-pregnancy BMI using the three criteria. Methods: Follow-up study in pregnant adolescents 12–19 years. Sociodemographic, anthropometric and pregnancy data were obtained. Percentage of pre-pregnancy BMI classification disparity was calculated between three criteria. Gestational weight gain was categorized in adequate, low and high according to IOM. Regression models were used to analyze negative neonatal outcomes. Results: 601 pregnant adolescents were included, mean age was 16±1.4 years. For pre-pregnancy BMI classification, 28.5% had classification disparity using IOM vs WHO, and 14% when comparing IOM vs CDC. Greater classification disparity was observed as BMI increased. When using WHO categories, a high weight gain was associated with increased risk of having a low birth weight baby (OR: 1.91, CI95%: 1.03–3.53). For CDC criteria, a low weight gain was associated with increased risk of having a preterm baby (OR: 2.65; CI95%: 1.16–6.08) and a high weight gain was associated with low birth weight (OR: 2.10; CI95%: 1.10–4.01). For IOM criteria, a weight gain either low or high were associated with increased risk of low birth weight and preterm birth. Conclusion: There is pre-pregnancy BMI classification disparity using criteria for adolescents compared to adult criteria. Nevertheless, with WHO and CDC only a high gestational weight gain was a risk for negative neonatal outcome. It is important to have a BMI classification system for adolescents that better predicts neonatal outcomes.

show abstract

How to classify BMI among pregnant adolescents? A prospective cohort

Pinho-Pompeu

Paulino

Morais

et al. 2018

Public Health Nutr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivePregnancy in adolescence is a global health issue, especially in developing countries. Additionally, the recommended gestational weight gain (GWG) is usually based on pre-pregnancy BMI and that might be complex for pregnant teens. The study objective was to compare three different methods of BMI classification and suggest the best way of determining pre-pregnancy BMI and monitoring GWG among pregnant adolescents.DesignPre-pregnancy weight, weight at first prenatal visit, height, sociodemographic, reproductive and perinatal data were collected. Weighted kappa and McNemar statistics were used to assess agreement between the classification methods.SettingProf. Dr Jose Aristodemo Pinotti Women’s Hospital, University of Campinas, Brazil.ParticipantsPrimiparas younger than 19 years of age and with less than 20 weeks of gestational age (n 150).ResultsBMI of the primiparas was determined according to the WHO recommendation for adult women, the Child Growth Standards (CGS) and their gynaecological age (GA). The WHO and GA measurements presented a strong agreement with each other (κw=0·99; 95 % CI 0·97, 1·00), but did not agree with the CGS classification (κw=0·62; 95 % CI 0·50, 0·74 by WHO; κw=0·62; 95 % CI 0·51, 0·74 by GA). Also, inadequate GWG was observed in 72·2 % of cases and was correlated with a higher rate of caesarean birth.ConclusionsBMI classification according to the CGS differed from WHO and GA. However, CGS and WHO agreed on perinatal outcomes. We recommend using BMI classification by WHO to assess pregnant adolescents, since it is easily applied and better known among health professionals.

show abstract

The performance of various anthropometric assessment methods for predicting low birth weight in adolescent pregnant women

Cited by 4 publications

References 21 publications

Ganancia de peso gestacional como predictor de macrosomía y bajo peso al nacer: revisión sistemática

Ganancia de peso gestacional como predictor de macrosomía y bajo peso al nacer: revisión sistemática

Pre-pregnancy body mass index classification and gestational weight gain on neonatal outcomes in adolescent mothers: A follow-up study

How to classify BMI among pregnant adolescents? A prospective cohort

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About