ArticleInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2024
Selecting a birth weight standard for an indigenous population in a LMIC: A prospective comparative study.
Article in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2024. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of the present study was to compare birth weight (BW) distribution and proportion of BWs below or above specified percentiles in low-risk singleton pregnancies in healthy South African (SA) women of mixed ancestry with expected values according to four BW references and to determine the physiological factors affecting BW.
methodsThis was an ancillary study of a prospective multinational cohort study, involving 7060 women recruited between August 2007 and January 2015 in two townships of Cape Town, characterized by low socioeconomic status, and high levels of drinking and smoking. Detailed information about maternal and pregnancy characteristics, including harmful exposures, was gathered prospectively, allowing us to select healthy women with uncomplicated pregnancies without any known harmful exposures. In this cohort we compared the median BW and the proportion of BWs <P3, 5 and 10 or >P90, 95 and 97 according to four reference standards (INTERGROWTH-21st, customized according to the method described by Mickolajczyk, Fetal Medicine Foundation and revised Fenton reference) with expected values. Appropriate parametric and nonparametric tests were used, and sensitivity analysis was performed for infant sex, first trimester bookings and women of normal body mass index (BMI). Multiple regression was used to explore effects of confounders. Written consent and ethics approval was obtained.
resultsThe cohort included 739 infants. The INTERGROWTH-21st standard was closest for the actual BW-distribution and categories. Below-expected BW was associated with boys, younger, shorter, leaner women, lower parity and gravidity. Actual BW was significantly influenced by maternal weight, BMI, parity and gestational age.
conclusionOf the four references assessed in this study, the INTERGROWTH-21st standard was closest for the actual BW distribution. Maternal variables significantly influence BW.
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.