Indian Journal of Radiology Indian Journal of Radiology  

   Login   | Users online: 1262

Home Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size     

 

 Table of Contents    
GENITOURINARY AND OBSTETRIC RADIOLOGY  
Year : 2013  |  Volume : 23  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 266-268
Validation of the global reference for fetal weight and birth weight percentiles


1 Director, Chikitsa Ultrasound Training and Research Centre, Mumbai, India
2 FRCOG Consultant in Maternal - Fetal Medicine and Obstetrics Fetal Medicine Unit St. George's Hospital, London, United Kingdom
3 Nowrosjee Wadia Maternity Hospital, Mumbai, India

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Web Publication23-Oct-2013
 

   Abstract 

The objective of this study was to evaluate whether the global reference curves adapted on the basis of WHO data for India and the Hadlock reference curves fit the population in India and to validate the reference curves. The data were retrieved retrospectively from the records of women registration for antenatal care at a charitable maternity hospital in Mumbai, India. All pregnancies were dated on CRL obtained before 14 weeks. Births before 34 th week were excluded. The expected frequencies of birth weights below the 1 st , 5 th , 10 th , 50 th , 90 th , 95 th and 99 th centiles from three reference ranges were compared with observed frequencies. It was found that the WHO generic reference adapted to India significantly underpredicted the birth weights and that the Hadlock reference ranges significantly overpredicted the birth weights. The use of generic reference adapted to Sri Lanka showed a better fit to the observed data. We concluded that global reference curves adapted on the basis of WHO data for India and the Hadlock reference ranges do not fit all the population in India and the charts need validation. Reference charts modified on the basis of data for Sri Lankan population show a better fit to the observed data, and therefore are more appropriate for use in clinical practice in South India.

Keywords: Birth weights; reference range; validation

How to cite this article:
Badade AB, Bhide A, Satoskar P, Wadekar D. Validation of the global reference for fetal weight and birth weight percentiles. Indian J Radiol Imaging 2013;23:266-8

How to cite this URL:
Badade AB, Bhide A, Satoskar P, Wadekar D. Validation of the global reference for fetal weight and birth weight percentiles. Indian J Radiol Imaging [serial online] 2013 [cited 2018 Dec 14];23:266-8. Available from: http://www.ijri.org/text.asp?2013/23/3/266/120270

   Introduction Top


Birth weight is dependent on several parameters, the chief being the gestational age at delivery. Of the non-pathological variables, maternal ethnicity, height, and weight, as well as parity are some variables previously shown to influence the birth weight. [1] Definition of small for gestational age baby depends on accurate criteria for expected mean weight and standard deviation. Country of birth is often used as a proxy for ethnicity where the population is ethnically relatively homogeneous. [2],[3],[4],[5] Infants who are small for gestational age, generally defined as having birth weight below the 10 th percentile at a particular gestational week, have a higher risk of various adverse outcomes in perinatal period. [6],[7],[8],[9] Creation of a generic reference for fetal weight and birth weight that could be readily adapted to local populations was recently described. [10] The present paper is validation of the reference for birth weights adapted to the local population.


   Materials and Methods Top


Information on maternal demographics [Table 1] was retrieved from pregnancies from women registration for antenatal care at a charitable maternity hospital in Mumbai, India. All pregnancies were dated on crown-rump length obtained before 14 weeks in keeping with accepted NICE guidelines. [11] We excluded all births below the 34 th week.
Table 1: Demographic details of women participating in the study

Click here to view


We used mean birth weight at 40 weeks and the coefficient of variation for India from the 2004-2008 WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health, [10] in order to construct the weight percentiles for the calculation of 5 th , 10 th , 50 th , 90 th , and 95 th centiles.


   Results and Discussion Top


The mean birth weight at 40 weeks of gestation was 2984 g.

The results of fitting the observed data to Hadlock et al.'s reference range [12] are shown in [Figure 1]. It is obvious that the centile curves do not fit the observed data distribution. The expected weight is far higher than the observed data.
Figure 1: Dstribution of birth weights based on centiles from Hadlock et al.

Click here to view


Mikolajczyk et al. reported that the use of Hadlock reference ranges would lead to 60% of newborns in India being classified as small for gestational age. In our study, the use of Hadlock reference ranges led to 47.6% of newborns below the 10 th centile and only 1.1% above the 90 th centile.

We concluded that the Hadlock reference ranges did not fit our data and significantly overpredicted birth weights.

The data were fitted to WHO global reference range adapted for India, using the weight percentile calculator, and the results are shown in [Figure 2].
Figure 2: Distribution of birth weights using generic reference range adapted for India

Click here to view


The observed distribution of birth weight does not fit the reference range derived from the global reference range adapted to Indian population based on the WHO survey. It identifies approximately one-quarter of all babies to weight above the 90 th centile, and therefore was significantly underpredicting birth weights.

The reason for this could be the following:

  • Mild differences in maternal characteristics as compared to the WHO study which, however, have been shown to play only a minor role in variation of birth weights [13],[14]
  • In the WHO survey, women were included even if the pregnancies were not dated by an early ultrasound scan which may have resulted in inaccuracy of birth weight at 40 weeks. It is well known that women overestimate the gestational age in the absence of early ultrasound dating. [15]
Consequently, we searched for reference ranges of other countries in the WHO generic reference ranges which might fit our data. Sri Lankan population is closer to South Indian in terms of ethnicity and the median maternal weight and the height for Sri Lankan women is 154 cm and 60 kg, respectively. We therefore repeated the exercise with global reference adapted to Sri Lankan population. [Table 2] and [Figure 3] show the use of generic reference adapted to Sri Lanka for our data. We found that 48.1% were below the 50 th centile and 15.9% were above the 90 th centile and 12.2% were below the 10 th centile. The observed distribution of birth weights fits these reference charts well. The mean birth weight and centiles are more symmetrically distributed.
Table 2: Use of generic reference adapted to Sri Lanka

Click here to view
Figure 3: Distribution of birth weights using generic reference range adapted for Sri Lanka

Click here to view


We have shown that global reference curves adapted on the basis of WHO data for India do not fit all the population in India, and the charts need validation. We have also shown that the Hadlock reference curves do not fit all the population in India. Reference charts modified on the basis of data for Sri Lankan population fit our data much better, and therefore are more appropriate to use in clinical practice.

The strength of our study is that all the participants had secure dating in pregnancy by means of an ultrasound scan in the first half of the pregnancy. Weakness of our study includes a relatively modest numbers of participants, and these preliminary results on a small sample size need to be further validated with larger numbers of patients.

 
   References Top

1.Gardosi J, Mongelli M, Wilcox M, Chang A. Chang. An adjustable fetal weight standard. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995;6:168-74.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Dominguez H, Schramm TK, Gislason GH, Norgaard ML, Raunsø J, Abildstrøm SZ, et al. National Background is Associated with Disparities in Initiation and Persistence to Statin Treatment in Subjects with Diabetes in Denmark. Front Pharmacol 2010;1:142.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Comstock RD, Castillo EM, Lindsay SP. Four-Year Review of the Use of Race and Ethnicity in Epidemiologic and Public Health Research. Am J Epidemiol 2004;159:611-9.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.Bhopal R. Ethnicity, Race and Health in multicultural societies: Foundations for better epidemiology, public health and healthcare., Chapter: Collecting ethnicity and health data. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. p. 75.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.Gill PS, Bhopal R, Wild S, Kai J. Limitations and potential of country of birth as proxy for ethnic group. BMJ 2005;330:196.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.Ott WJ. Small for gestational age fetus and neonatal outcome: Reevaluation of the relationship. Am J Perinatol 1995;12:396-400.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.Sung IK, Vohr B, Oh W. Growth and neurodevelopmental outcome of very low birth weight infants with intrauterine growth retardation: Comparison with control subjects matched by birth weight and gestational age. J Pediatr 1993;123:618-24.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.Doctor BA, O′Riordan MA, Kirchner HL, Shah D, Hack M. Perinatal correlates and neonatal outcomes of small for gestational age infants born at term gestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:652-9.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.Smedler AC, Faxelius G, Bremme K, Lagerstrom M. Psychological development in children born with very low birth weight after severe intrauterine growth retardation: A 10-year follow-up study. Acta Paediatr 1992;81:197-203.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.Mikolajczyk RT, Zhang J, Betran AP, Souza JP, Mori R, Gulmezoglu AM, et al. A global reference for fetal-weight and birthweight percentiles. Lancet 2011;377:1855-61.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.Antenatal care Routine care for the healthy pregnant woman. Clinical Guideline 6. National Institute of Clinical Excellence. 2003. www.nice.org.uk.   Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.Hadlock F, Harrist R, Martinez-Poyer J. In Utero Analysis ofFetal Growth: A Sonographic Weight Standard′. Radiology 1991;181:129-33.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.Hutcheon JA, Zhang X, Cnattingius S, Kramer MS, Platt RW. Customised birthweight percentiles: Does adjusting for maternal characteristics matter? BJOG 2008;115:1397-404.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.Hutcheon JA, Zhang X, Platt RW, Cnattingius S, Kramer MS. The case against customised birthweight standards. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2011;25:11-6.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.Taipale P, Hiilsemaa V. Predicting Delivery Date by Ultrasound and Last Menstrual Period in Early Gestation. Obstet Gynecol 2001;97:189-94.  Back to cited text no. 15
    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Anirudh B Badade
Director, Chikitsa Ultrasound Training and Research Centre, Balkrishna Centre, N.G Acharya Marg, Chembur Station, Mumbai
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0971-3026.120270

Rights and Permissions


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
   Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
    Results and Disc...
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3167    
    Printed49    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded191    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal