The pitfalls of using birthweight centile charts to audit care.

Autor: Roshan John Selvaratnam, Mary-Ann Davey, Euan Morrison Wallace
Jazyk: angličtina
Rok vydání: 2020
Předmět:
Zdroj: PLoS ONE, Vol 15, Iss 6, p e0235113 (2020)
Druh dokumentu: article
ISSN: 1932-6203
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235113
Popis: ObjectivesTimely delivery of fetal growth restriction (FGR) is important in reducing stillbirth. However, targeted earlier delivery of FGR preferentially removes smaller babies from later gestations, thereby right-shifting the distribution of birthweights at term. This artificially increases the birthweight cutoffs defining the lower centiles and redefines normally grown babies as small by population-based birthweight centiles. Our objective was to compare updated Australian national population-based birthweight centile charts over time with the prescriptive INTERGROWTH-21st standard.MethodsA retrospective descriptive study of all singleton births ≥34 weeks' gestation in Victoria, Australia in five two-year epochs: 1983-84, 1993-94, 2003-04, 2013-14, and 2016-17. The birthweight cutoffs defining the 3rd and 10th centile from three Australian national population-based birthweight centile charts, for births in 1991-1994, in 1998-2007, and 2004-2013 respectively, were applied to each epoch to calculate the proportion of babies with birthweight ResultsFrom 1983-84 to 2016-17, the proportion of babies with birthweight ConclusionsLocally-derived population-based birthweight centiles are better for clinical audit of care but should not be updated. Prescriptive birthweight standards are less useful in defining 'small' due to their significant left-shift.
Databáze: Directory of Open Access Journals
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje