ArticlePloS one2025
Classification of very low birth weight infants as small for gestational age: International vs. national standards.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt is not precisely known whether the use of national (Carrascosa 2008) and international growth standards (INTERGROWTH-21) shows good concordance in classifying very low birth weight infants as small-for-gestational-age or whether with the same degree of morbidity and mortality. The aims of this study were a) to evaluate the concordance between small-for-gestational-age neonates weighing <1500 g classified using the national and international standards, and b) to compare the morbidity and mortality of small-for-gestational-age neonates classified by both standards.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted with very low birth weight infants. The concordance between the INTERGROWTH-21 and Carrascosa 2008 standards was analyzed, along with differences in gestational age, weight, medical requirements, morbidity, and mortality, among small-for-gestational-age neonates classified by both standards. Small-for-gestational-age was defined as a birth weight z score ≤ -1.28.
resultsA total of 250 neonates weighing <1500 g, who were born between 26 and 36 weeks of gestation, were included. There was a high level of concordance in the classification of small-for-gestational-age between the two standards (Cohen's kappa = 0.80, p < 0.001). A lower incidence was observed when the INTERGROWTH-21 standard was used (31.6%) compared to the Carrascosa 2008 standard (40.8%), p = 0.03. No significant differences were found in mortality or morbidity among neonates classified as small-for-gestational-age by both standards.
conclusionThe Carrascosa 2008 and INTERGROWTH-21 standards classify small-for-gestational-age infants with comparable morbidity and mortality. We recommend the use of the INTERGROWTH-21 standard for its inclusion of multiple pregnancies, diverse ethnicities, and international comparability.
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.