Regional Gestational Age and Gender-Specific Birth Weight Reference Charts and its Comparison with Existing National and International Standards: A Cross-Sectional Study

Abstract

Background Growth potential is influenced by race, ethnicity, and environmental factors and assessment of growth using standardized charts is important for quality improvement initiatives in health care delivery and public health interventions of any nation.

Objective This article aims to develop regional gestational age and gender-specific reference for birth weight and to compare it with published literature.

Methodology This study was conducted in a teaching hospital in Puducherry, India and included 2,507 singleton babies. Babies with major congenital anomalies, maternal chronic illness, and nonavailability of first trimester dating scan were excluded. Detailed anthropometric measurement was done for these babies by single investigator as per established norms, their gestation- and sex-specific mean weight and weight percentiles were calculated and compared with existing data.

Results Both 10th and 90th percentiles were lower across all gestational ages compared with existing international standards. The proportion of late preterm and term small for gestational age (SGA) babies was 23% using Fenton-2013 reference chart, 14% using Intergrowth-21 chart, and 10% using the current study data (p < 0.0001). The proportion of large for gestational age (LGA) babies was 8.5%, using study data. Mean birth weight of male and female term babies born to primiparae were significantly higher compared with multiparae (p = 0.03 and 0.02, respectively).

Conclusion Indian babies may be overdiagnosed as SGA or underdiagnosed as LGA based on existing western standards in which our patient population is underrepresented. There is a need for gestational age-, gender-, and parity-specific regional growth charts for better characterization of anthropometric measures of Indian babies.

Keywords

newborn - birth weight percentile - small for gestational age - large for gestational age

Authors' Contributions

A.P. performed the study with inputs on study design and study supervision by S.V., S.S., and S.P. Statistical analysis and interpretation of the data was done by S.V. The first draft of this manuscript was written by S.V. with inputs from A.P., S.S., and S.P. All authors have seen and approved the final draft.

Publication History

Received: 12 May 2021

Accepted: 08 October 2021

Article published online:
13 December 2021

• References

• 1 Fenton TR, Kim JH. A systematic review and meta-analysis to revise the Fenton growth chart for preterm infants. BMC Pediatr 2013; 13: 59
• 2 Villar J, Cheikh Ismail L, Victora CG. et al; International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st Century (INTERGROWTH-21st). International standards for newborn weight, length, and head circumference by gestational age and sex: the Newborn Cross-Sectional Study of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project. Lancet 2014; 384 (9946): 857-868
• 3 Sharma R. Revised Kuppuswamy's Socioeconomic Status Scale: explained and updated. Indian Pediatr 2017; 54 (10) 867-870
• 4 Kumar VS, Jeyaseelan L, Sebastian T, Regi A, Mathew J, Jose R. New birth weight reference standards customised to birth order and sex of babies from South India. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2013; 13: 38
• 5 International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS) and ICF. National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4) 2015-16: India. Mumbai: IIPS; 2017
• 6 Lee AC, Katz J, Blencowe H. et al; CHERG SGA-Preterm Birth Working Group. National and regional estimates of term and preterm babies born small for gestational age in 138 low-income and middle-income countries in 2010. Lancet Glob Health 2013; 1 (01) e26-e36
• 7 Chawanpaiboon S, Vogel JP, Moller AB. et al. Global, regional, and national estimates of levels of preterm birth in 2014: a systematic review and modelling analysis. Lancet Glob Health 2019; 7 (01) e37-e46
• 8 Kozuki N, Lee AC, Katz J. Child Health Epidemiology Reference Group. Moderate to severe, but not mild, maternal anemia is associated with increased risk of small-for-gestational-age outcomes. J Nutr 2012; 142 (02) 358-362
• 9 He JR, Xia HM, Liu Y. et al. A new birthweight reference in Guangzhou, southern China, and its comparison with the global reference. Arch Dis Child 2014; 99 (12) 1091-1097
• 10 Bonellie S, Chalmers J, Gray R, Greer I, Jarvis S, Williams C. Centile charts for birthweight for gestational age for Scottish singleton births. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2008; 8: 5
• 11 Sebastian T, Yadav B, Jeyaseelan L, Vijayaselvi R, Jose R. Small for gestational age births among South Indian women: temporal trend and risk factors from 1996 to 2010. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2015; 15: 7
• 12 Jeyaseelan L, Yadav B, Silambarasan V, Vijayaselvi R, Jose R. Large for gestational age births among South Indian women: temporal trend and risk factors from 1996 to 2010. J Obstet Gynaecol India 2016; 66 (Suppl. 01) 42-50
• 13 Ghosh S, Bhargava SK, Madhavan S, Taskar AD, Bhargava V, Nigam SK. Intra-uterine growth of North Indian babies. Pediatrics 1971; 47 (05) 826-830
• 14 Singh M, Giri SK, Ramachandran K. Intrauterine growth curves of live born single babies. Indian Pediatr 1974; 11 (07) 475-479
• 15 Mathai M, Jacob S, Karthikeyan NG. Birthweight standards for South Indian babies. Indian Pediatr 1996; 33 (03) 203-209