ArticlePloS one2020
The pitfalls of using birthweight centile charts to audit care.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Maternal region of origin and Small for gestational age: a cross-sectional analysis of Victorian perinatal data.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTimely delivery of fetal growth restriction (FGR) is important in reducing stillbirth. However, targeted earlier delivery of FGR preferentially removes smaller babies from later gestations, thereby right-shifting the distribution of birthweights at term. This artificially increases the birthweight cutoffs defining the lower centiles and redefines normally grown babies as small by population-based birthweight centiles. Our objective was to compare updated Australian national population-based birthweight centile charts over time with the prescriptive INTERGROWTH-21st standard.
methodsA retrospective descriptive study of all singleton births ≥34 weeks' gestation in Victoria, Australia in five two-year epochs: 1983-84, 1993-94, 2003-04, 2013-14, and 2016-17. The birthweight cutoffs defining the 3rd and 10th centile from three Australian national population-based birthweight centile charts, for births in 1991-1994, in 1998-2007, and 2004-2013 respectively, were applied to each epoch to calculate the proportion of babies with birthweight <3rd and <10th centile. The same analysis was done using the INTERGROWTH-21st birthweight standard. To assess change over gestation, proportions were also calculated at preterm, early term and late term gestations.
resultsFrom 1983-84 to 2016-17, the proportion of babies with birthweight <3rd fell across all birthweight centile charts, from 3.1% to 1.7% using the oldest Australian chart, from 3.9% to 1.9% using the second oldest Australian chart, from 4.3% to 2.2% using the most recent Australian chart, and from 2.0% to 0.9% using the INTERGROWTH-21st standard. A similar effect was evident for the <10th centile. The effect was most obvious at term gestations. Updating the Australian population birthweight chart progressively right-shifted the birthweight distribution, changing the definition of small over time. The birthweight distribution of INTERGROWTH-21st was left-shifted compared to the Australian charts.
conclusionsLocally-derived population-based birthweight centiles are better for clinical audit of care but should not be updated. Prescriptive birthweight standards are less useful in defining 'small' due to their significant left-shift.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.