National and regional estimates of term and preterm babies born small for gestational age in 138 low-income and middle-income countries in 2010

Abstract

SummaryBackgroundNational estimates for the numbers of babies born small for gestational age and the comorbidity with preterm birth are unavailable. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of term and preterm babies born small for gestational age (term-SGA and preterm-SGA), and the relation to low birthweight (<2500 g), in 138 countries of low and middle income in 2010.MethodsSmall for gestational age was defined as lower than the 10th centile for fetal growth from the 1991 US national reference population. Data from 22 birth cohort studies (14 low-income and middle-income countries) and from the WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health (23 countries) were used to model the prevalence of term-SGA births. Prevalence of preterm-SGA infants was calculated from meta-analyses.FindingsIn 2010, an estimated 32·4 million infants were born small for gestational age in low-income and middle-income countries (27% of livebirths), of whom 10·6 million infants were born at term and low birthweight. The prevalence of term-SGA babies ranged from 5·3% of livebirths in east Asia to 41·5% in south Asia, and the prevalence of preterm-SGA infants ranged from 1·2% in north Africa to 3·0% in southeast Asia. Of 18 million low-birthweight babies, 59% were term-SGA and 41% were preterm. Two-thirds of small-for-gestational-age infants were born in Asia (17·4 million in south Asia). Preterm-SGA babies totalled 2·8 million births in low-income and middle-income countries. Most small-for-gestational-age infants were born in India, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Bangladesh.InterpretationThe burden of small-for-gestational-age births is very high in countries of low and middle income and is concentrated in south Asia. Implementation of effective interventions for babies born too small or too soon is an urgent priority to increase survival and reduce disability, stunting, and non-communicable diseases.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation by a grant to the US Fund for UNICEF to support the activities of the Child Health Epidemiology Reference Group (CHERG).

Maternal Demographic and Placental Risk Factors in Term Low Birth Weight in Ghana

“…Low birth weight (LBW) is defined as birth weights that are less than 2500 g at birth, and it is the single most important risk factor in neonatal and infant health [1][2][3]. LBW occurs in 15.5% of all live births or about 20.5 million infants per year worldwide [2,3].…”

“…LBW occurs in 15.5% of all live births or about 20.5 million infants per year worldwide [2,3]. LBW occurs in preterm babies (less than 37 completed weeks of gestation), infants with intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) and full-term infants (greater or equal to 37-41 completed weeks of gestation) [4,5].…”

Perinatal Complications and Aging Indicators by Midlife

“…Although our sample size was not large enough to interrogate each specific type of complication, we had enough cases to interrogate the 2 most common complications: low birth weight (,2.5 kg; N = 43) and small size for gestational age (N = 72). 1,34,35 These 2 complications are not synonymous; they were correlated at r = 0.33, and only 29% of infants small for gestational age were low birth weight, as in the general population. …”

Prevalencias de bajo peso y pequeño para la edad gestacional en Argentina: comparación entre el estándar INTERGROWTH-21st y una referencia argentina

“…15 En el presente trabajo y a nivel regional, independientemente de la EG, la prevalencia de PEG es mayor con la referencia que con el estándar, y oscila con la referencia entre 20% (Cuyo) y 13,3% (Patagonia) y con el estándar de 15,5% (Cuyo) a 10,9% (Patagonia). Este hallazgo puede atribuirse a que los PEG más pesados bajo la referencia son recategorizados a peso adecuado bajo el nuevo estándar.…”

“…El punto de corte de PEG menor del P10 utilizando la referencia puede haber sido demasiado inclusivo en la identificación de neonatos en riesgo de restricción del crecimiento fetal (Figura 3). 16 Las diferencias con la literatura pueden atribuirse a que, para calcular la prevalencia de PEG, en el estudio de Lee et al, 15 se utilizó la referencia de Alexander et al, 16 que empleaba, además de procedimientos de alisamiento de percentilos no linear, una técnica para identificar y excluir casos con incompatibilidad biológica entre PN y EG. Hasta la semana 37 +6 , el P10 de esta referencia era, en ambos sexos, más alto que los de la referencia poblacional argentina de Urquía y el estándar.…”