ArticleBMC pediatrics2024
Comparison of INTERGROWTH- 21st and Fenton growth standards to assess size at birth and at discharge in preterm infants in the United Arab Emirates.
Article in BMC pediatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 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
- Article
- Fenton vs INTERGROWTH-21st charts in preterm infants < 32 weeks: impact of chart selection on growth classification.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- The Science of Growth Monitoring: Beyond the Basics.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate growth assessment of preterm infants is essential in guiding medical care and suitable nutritional interventions. Currently, different growth references are used across hospitals in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This study aims to compare the INTERGROWTH-21st standards with Fenton growth references regarding birth size classification and at the time of discharge in a sample of preterm infants in the UAE.
methodsA retrospective single-center evaluation of medical records of infants born < 37 weeks of gestation was conducted using data from 2018 to 2020. Anthropometric measurements (weight, length, and head circumference) were obtained at birth and at the time of discharge, and then converted to percentiles according to the two reference standards.
resultsA total of 1537 infants with a median birth gestation of 35.3 weeks, and a median birthweight of 2320 g were included. The rates of SGA, AGA, and LGA at birth were 11.5%, 80.42%, and 9.08% using INTERGROWTH-21st growth charts compared to 9.5%, 83.2%, and 7.3% respectively according to Fenton charts. The findings indicated statistically significant differences between the two growth charts classifying of preterm infants based on weight, length, and head circumference (p < 0.05). For every 5 cases assessed as SGA at discharge according to Fenton charts, only 3 were classified as SGA by INTERGROWTH-21st curves.
conclusionsDifferences exist between the two growth charts with only moderate agreement. Thus, there is a need for harmonizing growth assessment standards. Misclassification of these vulnerable infants would affect their in-hospital and post-discharge nutrition and medical care plan.
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.