ArticleBMJ paediatrics open2024
Comparative analysis of INTERGROWTH-21st and Fenton growth charts for birthweight classification in a multiethnic Asian cohort: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ paediatrics open, 2024. 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.
- Reclassification of SGA and EUGR in very preterm infants after the introduction of Fenton-2025: a retrospective cohort comparison with INTERGROWTH-21st and Fenton-2013.BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
- Comparison between New AIIMS growth chart versus Fenton growth chart for classification of small-for-gestational-age neonates at birth: A prospective observational study.Medical journal, Armed Forces IndiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of using International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st Century (INTERGROWTH-21st) (IG-21) growth standards compared with Fenton growth charts on birthweight classification in a multiethnic newborn cohort in Singapore.
designCross-sectional study.
settingKK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore. PATIENTS: Study population included 2541 babies born between 16 December 2019 and 16 March 2020.
interventionsNone.
main outcome measuresBirthweight classifications of small for gestational age (SGA), appropriate for gestational age (AGA) and large for gestational age (LGA) were assessed using IG-21 and Fenton growth charts. The level of agreement between the two charts was measured using Cohen's kappa coefficient (K).
resultsOf 2541 neonates, 171 (6.7%) had discordant birthweight classifications. The kappa coefficient indicated moderate overall agreement (K=0.79) between the charts, with decreasing agreement from preterm (K=0.88) to full-term categories (K=0.71). The largest discordance was observed in 98 (60.5%) neonates classified as LGA by IG-21 but AGA by Fenton. In comparison, 60 (2.9%) neonates classified as AGA by IG-21 were SGA by Fenton, while 13 (4.6%) were SGA by IG-21 but AGA by Fenton.
conclusionsThe study found discrepancies in birthweight classification between IG-21 and Fenton growth charts, with Fenton charts overclassifying SGA and underclassifying LGA in our study population. These findings suggest the potential need to integrate IG-21 growth standards into local practice to improve accuracy in neonatal growth assessment. Further research is necessary to evaluate the clinical implications of these discordant classifications on neonatal outcomes.
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.