Comparison of updated birth weight, length and head circumference charts by gestational age in China with the INTERGROWTH-21st NCSS charts: a population-based study

BACKGROUND: INTERGROWTH-21st Newborn Cross-Sectional Study (NCSS) charts were established and recommended for global application. However, whether one international reference is appropriate for all populations is still unclear. We aim to compare the updated Chinese birth size charts by gestational age with INTERGROWTH-21st NCSS charts. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was carried out, and the birth weight, length and head circumference of 24,375 infants born after uncomplicated pregnancies at gestational age ranging from 24(+0) to 42(+6) weeks were measured in 13 cities in China from 2015 to 2018. Growth charts were constructed. The measurements of all these infants were evaluated by the methods of calculating their Z scores using the INTERGROWTH-21st standards. The prevalence of small for gestational age (SGA) and large for gestational age (LGA) based on birth weight was analyzed using Chinese charts and INTERGROWTH-21st charts. RESULTS: The mean Z scores were 0.10 for birth weight, 0.35 for length and − 0.02 for head circumference. Compared to the INTERGROWTH-21st charts, the Chinese birth weight percentile curves were higher except for the 90th percentile at 29–37 weeks gestational age, and the length percentile curves were higher after 33 weeks gestational age, while the 10th percentile of the head circumference was lower and the other percentiles were similar. The prevalence of SGA was 10.1% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 9.7%–10.5%] using the Chinese birth weight chart and 6.5% (95% CI = 6.2%–6.8%) using the INTERGROWTH-21st birth weight chart. The prevalence of LGA was 9.9% (95% CI = 9.5%–10.2%) and 8.2% (95% CI = 7.9%–8.6%) using the Chinese and INTERGROWTH-21st birth weight charts, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Chinese birth size charts based on infants born after uncomplicated pregnancies were different from the INTERGROWTH-21st charts. Differences in the classification of newborns by the two charts should receive attention, and whether the application of INTERGROWTH-21st in Chinese newborns will lead to misclassification needs to be validated in future clinical practice.