Are we missing at-risk babies? Comparison of customised growth charts v. standard population charts in a diabetic population

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Adam, Sumaiya
dc.contributor.author Lombaard, H.A.D.T. (Hennie)
dc.contributor.author Van Zyl, Danie G.
dc.date.accessioned 2015-05-08T10:56:45Z
dc.date.available 2015-05-08T10:56:45Z
dc.date.issued 2014-10
dc.description.abstract BACKGROUND. Diabetes in pregnancy is associated with both accelerated fetal growth and intrauterine growth restriction. OBJECTIVE. To compare the difference in occurrence of large-for-gestational-age (LGA) and small-for-gestational-age (SGA) fetuses in a pregnant diabetic population using population-based growth charts and customised growth charts. METHODS. Retrospective observational study at Steve Biko Academic and Kalafong hospitals, Pretoria, South Africa. Information from an electronic database was used to retrospectively generate customised centiles using a web-based tool (www.gestation.net). The first fetal growth scan of the third trimester, as determined by ultrasound, was plotted for each patient on both the population-based and customised growth charts. We compared the growth category on the population-based growth chart with that on the customised growth chart. RESULTS. Of the patients, 44 had type 1, 66 type 2 and 173 gestational diabetes. The growth of 79/283 fetuses would have been reclassified had customised growth charts been used. Of cases in which fetal growth was classified as appropriate for gestation on the populationbased growth charts, 58 fetuses would have been LGA and 14 SGA had customised growth charts been used. Four of the fetuses that were SGA and three that were LGA on the population-based growth charts would have been classified as appropriately grown on the customised growth charts. This was a statistically significant difference (p<0.001), with a Cohen’s kappa of 0.45 indicating moderate agreement. CONCLUSIONS. Customised growth charts identified more babies with aberrations of growth, who may need vigilant antenatal care and elective delivery and may be at increased health risk in the future. en_ZA
dc.description.librarian am2015 en_ZA
dc.description.uri http://sajog.org.za/index.php/SAJOG OR http://reference.sabinet.co.za/sa_epublication/m_sajog en_ZA
dc.identifier.citation Adam, S, Lombaard, HAD & Van Zyl, DG 2014, 'Are we missing at-risk babies? Comparison of customised growth charts v. standard population charts in a diabetic population', South African Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 88-90. en_ZA
dc.identifier.issn 0038-2329 (print)
dc.identifier.issn 2078-5135 (online)
dc.identifier.other 10.7196/SAJOG.869
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/2263/45071
dc.language.iso en en_ZA
dc.publisher Health and Medical Publishing Group en_ZA
dc.rights © 2014 Health and Medical Publishing Group. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial Works License (CC BY-NC 3.0) . en_ZA
dc.subject Diabetes en_ZA
dc.subject Pregnancy en_ZA
dc.subject Fetal growth en_ZA
dc.subject Customised growth charts en_ZA
dc.subject Small-for-gestational-age (SGA) fetuses en_ZA
dc.subject Large-for-gestational-age (LGA) fetuses en_ZA
dc.subject Population-based growth charts en_ZA
dc.subject Customised growth charts en_ZA
dc.title Are we missing at-risk babies? Comparison of customised growth charts v. standard population charts in a diabetic population en_ZA
dc.type Article en_ZA


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record