Abstract
Objective
To compare the average birthweights and the weight centiles of the ‘new’ growth charts with the ‘old’ (1974) charts developed in the same unit four decades ago.
Methods
Birthweight and gestation data of the eligible 12,355 singleton neonates born between 2009 and 2016 at a level-3 neonatal unit at a public sector hospital were used to develop the new growth chart. We then compared the prevalence of small for gestational age (SGA) and large for gestational age (LGA) classified by the new charts and the old charts, the incidence of short-term adverse outcomes among them, and the diagnostic performance of both the charts to identify the adverse outcomes in a separate validation cohort.
Results
The mean birthweights of boys and girls across all gestations were higher by 150–200 g and 100–150 g, respectively, in the new chart. The prevalence of SGA doubled (9.8% vs 4.7%), but LGA decreased by one-third (17.5% vs 25.9%) with the new chart. However, the proportion of SGA and LGA having one or more short-term adverse outcomes, and the diagnostic performance of both the charts to identify neonates with short-term adverse outcomes, were comparable.
Conclusion
There was an upward shift in the birthweights by about 150 g across all gestations in the new chart compared to the old chart developed 40 years ago. The findings imply the need to consider using updated growth charts to ensure accurate classification of size at birth of neonates.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Oken E. Secular trends in birthweight. Nestle Nutr Inst Workshop Ser. 2013;71:103–14.
Margerison-Zilko C. The contribution of maternal birth cohort to term small for gestational age in the United States 1989–2010: An age, period, and cohort analysis. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2014;28:312–21.
Aris IM, Kleinman KP, Belfort MB, et al. A 2017 US reference for singleton birth weight percentiles using obstetric estimates of gestation. Pediatrics. 2019;144: e20190076.
Singh M, Giri SK, Ramachandran K. Intrauterine growth curves of live-born infants. Indian Pediatr. 1974;11:475–79.
Committee Opinion No 700: Methods for estimating the due date. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129:e150–e154.
Cole TJ, Green PJ. Smoothing reference centile curves: the LMS method and penalized likelihood. Stat Med. 1992;11: 1305–19.
Rohatgi A. Web Plot Digitizer; 2015. Accessed September 10, 2020. Available from: http://www.arohatgi.info/WebPlotDigitizer
Ghosh S, Bhargava SK, Madhavan S, et al. Intra-uterine growth of north Indian babies. Pediatrics. 1971;47:826–30.
Mohan M, Prasad SR, Chellani HK, Kapani V. Intrauterine growth curves in north Indian babies: weight, length, head circumference and ponderal index. Indian Pediatr. 1990; 27:43–51.
Singhal PK, Paul VK, Deorari AK, et al. Changing trends in intrauterine growth curves. Indian Pediatr. 1991;28:281–3.
Kumar VS, Jeyaseelan L, Sebastian T, et al. New birth weight reference standards customised to birth order and sex of babies from south India. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013;13:38.
Mathai M, Jacob S, Karthikeyan NG. Birthweight standards for south Indian babies. Indian Pediatr. 1996;33:203–9.
Babson SG, Benda GI. Growth graphs for the clinical assessment of infants of varying gestational age. J Pediatr. 1976; 89:814–20.
Fenton TR. A new growth chart for preterm babies: Babson and Benda’s chart updated with recent data and a new format. BMC Pediatr. 2003;3:13.
WHO Multicentre Growth Reference Study Group. Assessment of differences in linear growth among populations in the WHO Multicentre Growth Reference Study. Acta Paediatr Suppl. 2006;450:56–65.
Villar J, Cheikh Ismail L, Victora CG, et al. International standards for newborn weight, length, and head circumference by gestational age and sex: The Newborn cross-sectional study of the INTERGROWTH-21st project. Lancet. 2014;384:857–68.
Funding
Funding: None; Competing interests: None stated.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Contributors: DT: designed the study, collected the data, did the initial analyses, and drafted the initial manuscript; PA: contributed to the initial data collection & analysis and helped draft the initial manuscript; RA, AT, AD: provided critical insights into the study design, supervised the conduct of the study and critically reviewed the final manuscript; MJS: helped design the study, supervised the conduct of the study, did the final analysis, and reviewed and finalized the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics clearance: IEC, AIIMS, New Delhi; No. IECPG/768/30.01.2020 dated Feb 11, 2020.
Additional information
Note: Additional material related to this study is available with the online version at https://www.indianpediatrics.net
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Thomas, D., Anand, P., Thukral, A. et al. Secular Trends in Birthweights in Two Epochs Over 40 Years in a Tertiary Care Center. Indian Pediatr 59, 603–607 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13312-022-2571-9
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13312-022-2571-9