Customized compared to population-based centiles for detecting term small for gestational age infants in Greece.
Customized centiles
population-based centiles
small for gestational age infants
Journal
Hippokratia
ISSN: 1108-4189
Titre abrégé: Hippokratia
Pays: Greece
ID NLM: 101296613
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
entrez:
9
7
2021
pubmed:
10
7
2021
medline:
10
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Applying customized centiles may improve the accuracy of detecting small for gestational age (SGA) infants; however, the evidence is inconclusive whether adjusted centiles are more sensitive in identifying infants at increased risk of morbidity. We aimed to examine the validity of customized centiles in a Greek cohort and evaluate their performance compared to population-based centiles in predicting infants at risk of increased morbidity. We prospectively recorded the neonatal and maternal characteristics of singleton, low-risk, term infants over a year. Infants were defined as SGA if their birth weight was under the tenth centile, classified both by population-based centiles and customized centiles, adjusted for maternal and innate factors. We performed a comparative analysis utilizing linear regression analysis and calculating the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves. Overall 657 infants were identified. Population-based centiles detected 42 (6 %) SGA infants, while customized centiles 80 (12 %). Perinatal morbidity was associated with an odds ratio of 1.02 with customized centiles [95 % confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.04] and with an odds ratio of 1.02 with population-based centiles (95 % CI: 1.02-1.02). In predicting perinatal morbidity, no significant difference was detected between customized centiles [area under the ROC curve 0.773 (95 % CI: 0.699-0.847)] and population-based centiles [area under the ROC curve 0.737 (95 % CI: 0.662-0.813)] (p =0.272). Customized centiles provided increased accuracy in comparison to the population-based centiles in detecting SGA term infants. However, customized centiles had no better impact on predicting a poor perinatal outcome. HIPPOKRATIA 2020, 24(3): 133-137.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Applying customized centiles may improve the accuracy of detecting small for gestational age (SGA) infants; however, the evidence is inconclusive whether adjusted centiles are more sensitive in identifying infants at increased risk of morbidity. We aimed to examine the validity of customized centiles in a Greek cohort and evaluate their performance compared to population-based centiles in predicting infants at risk of increased morbidity.
METHODS
METHODS
We prospectively recorded the neonatal and maternal characteristics of singleton, low-risk, term infants over a year. Infants were defined as SGA if their birth weight was under the tenth centile, classified both by population-based centiles and customized centiles, adjusted for maternal and innate factors. We performed a comparative analysis utilizing linear regression analysis and calculating the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Overall 657 infants were identified. Population-based centiles detected 42 (6 %) SGA infants, while customized centiles 80 (12 %). Perinatal morbidity was associated with an odds ratio of 1.02 with customized centiles [95 % confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.04] and with an odds ratio of 1.02 with population-based centiles (95 % CI: 1.02-1.02). In predicting perinatal morbidity, no significant difference was detected between customized centiles [area under the ROC curve 0.773 (95 % CI: 0.699-0.847)] and population-based centiles [area under the ROC curve 0.737 (95 % CI: 0.662-0.813)] (p =0.272).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Customized centiles provided increased accuracy in comparison to the population-based centiles in detecting SGA term infants. However, customized centiles had no better impact on predicting a poor perinatal outcome. HIPPOKRATIA 2020, 24(3): 133-137.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
133-137Informations de copyright
Copyright 2020, Hippokratio General Hospital of Thessaloniki.
Références
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Jul;201(1):28.e1-8
pubmed: 19576372
Horm Res. 2006;65 Suppl 3:15-8
pubmed: 16612109
PLoS Med. 2019 Sep 20;16(9):e1002902
pubmed: 31539391
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 May 16;(5):CD008549
pubmed: 24830409
BMC Med. 2019 Oct 17;17(1):186
pubmed: 31619225
BJOG. 2001 Aug;108(8):830-4
pubmed: 11510708
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Sep;6(3):168-74
pubmed: 8521065
Lancet. 1992 Feb 1;339(8788):283-7
pubmed: 1346292
Biol Neonate. 2001;80(4):277-85
pubmed: 11641551
Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Mar;99(3):490-6
pubmed: 11864679
Radiology. 1991 Oct;181(1):129-33
pubmed: 1887021
BMC Pediatr. 2013 Apr 20;13:59
pubmed: 23601190
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Aug;50(2):156-166
pubmed: 27935148
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2010 Jan;23(1):48-54
pubmed: 19565425
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2011 Jan;25(1):11-6
pubmed: 21133965
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Apr;194(4):1042-9
pubmed: 16580294
J Pediatr. 2012 Dec;161(6):1053-8
pubmed: 22765954
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998 May;105(5):531-5
pubmed: 9637123
BJOG. 2005 Aug;112(8):1026-33
pubmed: 16045513
Early Hum Dev. 2005 Jan;81(1):43-9
pubmed: 15707714
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2009 Dec;23(6):741-9
pubmed: 19854681
Am J Epidemiol. 2013 Oct 15;178(8):1301-8
pubmed: 23966560
PLoS Med. 2017 Jan 31;14(1):e1002228
pubmed: 28141865
Am J Epidemiol. 2013 Oct 15;178(8):1309-12
pubmed: 23966561
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2007 Jul;92(4):F277-80
pubmed: 17251224