Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31158843›Full record

ArticlePediatric research2019

Comparison of the INTERGROWTH-21st standard and a new reference for head circumference at birth among newborns in Southern China.

Wan-Qing Xiao, Li-Fang Zhang, Jian-Rong He, Song-Ying Shen, Anna L Funk, Jin-Hua Lu, Xue-Ling Wei, Jia Yu, Li Yang, Fang Li and 2 more

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pediatric research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Wan-Qing XiaoDivision of Birth Cohort Study, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Li-Fang ZhangDivision of Birth Cohort Study, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Jian-Rong HeDivision of Birth Cohort Study, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Song-Ying ShenDivision of Birth Cohort Study, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Anna L FunkEmerging Disease Epidemiology Unit, Institut Pasteur, Paris, France.
Jin-Hua LuDivision of Birth Cohort Study, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Xue-Ling WeiDivision of Birth Cohort Study, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Jia YuDepartment of Woman and Child Health Care, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Li YangDepartment of Woman and Child Health Care, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Fang LiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Guangzhou Eighth People's Hospital, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Hui-Min XiaDivision of Birth Cohort Study, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Xiu QiuDivision of Birth Cohort Study, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. qxiu0161@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevious studies proposed that there were racial or ethnic disparities in fetal growth, challenging the use of international standards in specific populations. This study was to evaluate the validity of applying the INTERGROWTH-21st standard to a Chinese population for identifying abnormal head circumference (HC), in comparison with a newly generated local reference.

methodsThere were 24,257 singletons delivered by low-risk mothers in four perinatal health-care centers in Southern China. New HC reference was constructed and comparison in distribution of HC categories was performed between the INTERGROWTH-21st standard and new reference after applying these two tools in study population. Logistic regression was used to examine the association between abnormal HC and adverse neonatal outcomes.

resultsThere were 4.40% of the newborns identified with microcephaly (HC > 2 standard deviation below the mean) using the INTERGROWTH-21st standard, comparing to the proportion of 2.83% using new reference. The newborns identified with microcephaly only by the INTERGROWTH-21st standard were not at a higher risk of adverse neonatal outcome, compared with those identified as non-microcephaly by both tools (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.47-1.13).

conclusionThe new HC reference may be more appropriate for newborn assessment in Chinese populations than the INTERGROWTH-21st standard.

Indexed as

AnthropometryReference StandardsBirth WeightChinaFemaleHeadHumansInfant, NewbornInfant, PrematureMaleMicrocephalyNeonatal ScreeningNeonatologyReference ValuesRegression Analysis

Identifiers

PMID31158843

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.