4.5 Article

Birth weight charts for gestational age in 63 620 healthy infants born in Peruvian public hospitals at low and at high altitude

期刊

ACTA PAEDIATRICA
卷 98, 期 3, 页码 454-458

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2008.01137.x

关键词

Birth weight; Curves for birth weight; High altitude; Intrauterine growth retardation; Peruvian charts

资金

  1. NIH [5-D43TW005746-04]
  2. Fogarty International Center
  3. National Institutes of Environmental Health Services, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
  4. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: To construct distribution curves for birth weight, length and head circumference using a large sample of infants born at low (150 m) and high (3000-4400 m) altitude. Methods: Cross-sectional analysis of a perinatal database. All live singleton deliveries from public hospitals during 2001-2006 (gestational age from 26 to 42 weeks) with no history of perinatal deaths or smoking and no current obstetric complications (n = 63 620) were included. Fractional polynomial regression models were used to smooth curves for each gestational age. Results: Mean and median birth weight differences between those born at low and high altitudes reached statistical significance after 35 and 33 weeks, respectively. Values of the 10th percentile were higher at low altitude from 36 weeks, whereas values at the 90th percentile were different from 34 weeks. In the Peruvian growth curves, birth weight was greater at each gestational age than in the curves derived by Lubchenco. Conclusion: Altitude affects growth patterns; these growth standards will provide useful references for the care of the newborn in highland populations. In addition, the data have implications for the antepartum management of pregnant patients undergoing sonographic evaluation of fetal weight in whom new definitions of what represents small or large for gestational age in utero can result in differences in time or mode of delivery.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据