Cargando…

The pitfalls of using birthweight centile charts to audit care

OBJECTIVES: Timely 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 b...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Selvaratnam, Roshan John, Davey, Mary-Ann, Wallace, Euan Morrison
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7310721/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32574213
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235113
_version_ 1783549408871186432
author Selvaratnam, Roshan John
Davey, Mary-Ann
Wallace, Euan Morrison
author_facet Selvaratnam, Roshan John
Davey, Mary-Ann
Wallace, Euan Morrison
author_sort Selvaratnam, Roshan John
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Timely 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-21(st) standard. METHODS: A 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 3(rd) and 10(th) 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 <3(rd) and <10(th) centile. The same analysis was done using the INTERGROWTH-21(st) birthweight standard. To assess change over gestation, proportions were also calculated at preterm, early term and late term gestations. RESULTS: From 1983–84 to 2016–17, the proportion of babies with birthweight <3(rd) fell across all birthweight centile charts, from 3.1% to 1.7% using the oldest Australian chart, from 3.9% to 1.9% using the second oldest Australian chart, from 4.3% to 2.2% using the most recent Australian chart, and from 2.0% to 0.9% using the INTERGROWTH-21(st) standard. A similar effect was evident for the <10(th) centile. The effect was most obvious at term gestations. Updating the Australian population birthweight chart progressively right-shifted the birthweight distribution, changing the definition of small over time. The birthweight distribution of INTERGROWTH-21(st) was left-shifted compared to the Australian charts. CONCLUSIONS: Locally-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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7310721
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73107212020-06-26 The pitfalls of using birthweight centile charts to audit care Selvaratnam, Roshan John Davey, Mary-Ann Wallace, Euan Morrison PLoS One Research Article OBJECTIVES: Timely 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-21(st) standard. METHODS: A 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 3(rd) and 10(th) 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 <3(rd) and <10(th) centile. The same analysis was done using the INTERGROWTH-21(st) birthweight standard. To assess change over gestation, proportions were also calculated at preterm, early term and late term gestations. RESULTS: From 1983–84 to 2016–17, the proportion of babies with birthweight <3(rd) fell across all birthweight centile charts, from 3.1% to 1.7% using the oldest Australian chart, from 3.9% to 1.9% using the second oldest Australian chart, from 4.3% to 2.2% using the most recent Australian chart, and from 2.0% to 0.9% using the INTERGROWTH-21(st) standard. A similar effect was evident for the <10(th) centile. The effect was most obvious at term gestations. Updating the Australian population birthweight chart progressively right-shifted the birthweight distribution, changing the definition of small over time. The birthweight distribution of INTERGROWTH-21(st) was left-shifted compared to the Australian charts. CONCLUSIONS: Locally-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. Public Library of Science 2020-06-23 /pmc/articles/PMC7310721/ /pubmed/32574213 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235113 Text en © 2020 Selvaratnam et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Selvaratnam, Roshan John
Davey, Mary-Ann
Wallace, Euan Morrison
The pitfalls of using birthweight centile charts to audit care
title The pitfalls of using birthweight centile charts to audit care
title_full The pitfalls of using birthweight centile charts to audit care
title_fullStr The pitfalls of using birthweight centile charts to audit care
title_full_unstemmed The pitfalls of using birthweight centile charts to audit care
title_short The pitfalls of using birthweight centile charts to audit care
title_sort pitfalls of using birthweight centile charts to audit care
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7310721/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32574213
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235113
work_keys_str_mv AT selvaratnamroshanjohn thepitfallsofusingbirthweightcentilechartstoauditcare
AT daveymaryann thepitfallsofusingbirthweightcentilechartstoauditcare
AT wallaceeuanmorrison thepitfallsofusingbirthweightcentilechartstoauditcare
AT selvaratnamroshanjohn pitfallsofusingbirthweightcentilechartstoauditcare
AT daveymaryann pitfallsofusingbirthweightcentilechartstoauditcare
AT wallaceeuanmorrison pitfallsofusingbirthweightcentilechartstoauditcare