ArticleMaternal and child health journal2020
Development of the Birthweight Appropriateness Quotient: A New Measure of Infant's Size.
Article in Maternal and child health journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe customised birthweight model can be used to improve detection of babies that may be at risk of adverse outcomes associated with abnormal growth, however it is currently used in conjunction with either an intrauterine growth standard or the individualised birthweight ratio (IBR), both of which have significant methodological flaws. Our aim was to investigate the statistical validity of the IBR and attempt to develop a new measurement to represent the appropriateness of an infant's size at birth that will support clinicians in identifying infants requiring further attention.
methodsRoutinely collected hospital maternity and neonatal data on singleton, term births from a tertiary Australian hospital were extracted for the time period 1998-2009. The relationships between birthweight, customised birthweight and IBR are investigated using correlation, regression analysis and division of births into groups of < 2500 g, 2500-4000 g and > 4000 g. A new measure, the Birthweight Appropriateness Quotient (BAQ), is developed. The utility of the BAQ is compared with IBR and birthweight to identify infants with a composite neonatal morbidity outcome.
resultsStatistical flaws with the IBR due to significant correlation between birthweight and customised birthweight and a heterogenous relationship between these two measurements across the range of birthweight are present. BAQ is uncorrelated with birthweight. Comparison of BAQ and IBR as indicators of adverse neonatal outcome demonstrates that BAQ identifies babies at risk due to their small size and those babies at risk due to inappropriate size. CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE: BAQ is a customised measurement of an infant's size free of the statistical flaws experienced by the IBR with the ability to identify at-risk infants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32794153What 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.