Customized versus population-based growth curves: Prediction of low body fat percent at term corrected gestational age following preterm birth

Abstract

Customized growth potential improves the differentiation of SGA infants and low BF% compared with a standard population-based growth curve among a cohort of preterm infants.

Application of A global reference for fetal‐weight and birthweight percentiles in predicting infant mortality

“…[32][33][34][35][36][37] However, our results (Figure 3) indicate that there are large differences in infant mortality rates among races/ethnicities, even within the same fetal size category, which supports the necessity to adjust for race/ethnicity. Unfortunately, the current data do not allow us to look at some other components of customisation, such as maternal height and weight.…”

Customized vs population‐based growth charts to identify neonates at risk of adverse outcome: systematic review and Bayesian meta‐analysis of observational studies

“…We identified 237 potentially relevant publications and reviewed 27 articles for eligibility. The following adverse fetal and neonatal outcomes were addressed in the studies on SGA: IUFD, neonatal death, death in the NICU, perinatal mortality, composite neonatal outcome, NICU admission, oligohydramnios, hospital stay, Apgar score, neonatal resuscitation, oxygen requirement, umbilical‐cord blood pH, metabolic acidosis, neonatal jaundice, fetal distress and body fat mass. Hypertensive disorders, preterm birth (indicated or spontaneous), Cesarean or operative delivery, preterm prelabor rupture of membranes and placental abruption/antepartum hemorrhage represented the maternal adverse outcomes studied among SGA neonates.…”

Air displacement plethysmography (pea pod) in full-term and pre-term infants: a comprehensive review of accuracy, reproducibility, and practical challenges

“…skinfold) [ 70 – 76 ], monitoring growth patterns [ 54 , 77 – 80 ], investigating the relationship between maternal and prenatal factors and health outcomes during infancy [ 81 – 86 ], and others [ 87 ]. The majority of these studies ( n = 43) included only full-term infants [ 33 , 52 – 54 , 56 – 58 , 60 , 62 , 66 , 67 , 69 – 72 , 74 , 75 , 78 , 80 , 81 , 83 – 86 , 88 – 106 ], 13 only pre-term infants [ 9 , 68 , 73 , 77 , 79 , 107 – 112 ], and 17 both full- and pre-term infants [ 55 , 59 , 61 , 63 – 65 , 76 , 82 , 87 , 113 – 120 ]. Although, the use of Pea Pod in both full-term and pre-term infants and in specific clinical risk and ethnic groups is feasible, it might be associated with some practical challenges.…”

“…Infants who require oxygen, intravenous fluids and who are unstable also cannot easily undergo Pea Pod measurement. The inclusion/exclusion criteria of a large number of papers are based on these characteristics such as weight [ 9 , 43 , 55 , 65 , 71 , 73 , 78 , 79 , 88 , 93 , 108 – 111 , 113 , 114 ] and health condition [ 9 , 33 , 54 , 61 , 76 , 77 , 98 , 100 , 112 , 123 ]).…”