Skip to main content
PMC home page
The BMJ logoLink to The BMJ
. 1993 Sep 4;307(6904):588–591. doi: 10.1136/bmj.307.6904.588

Birth weight from pregnancies dated by ultrasonography in a multicultural British population.

M Wilcox 1, J Gardosi 1, M Mongelli 1, C Ray 1, I Johnson 1
PMCID: PMC1678907  PMID: 8401014

Abstract

OBJECTIVE--To produce standard curves of birth weight according to gestational age validated by ultrasonography in the British population, with particular reference to the effects of ethnic origin. DESIGN--Retrospective analysis of computerised obstetric database. SETTING--Three large maternity units associated with Nottingham University with over 16,000 deliveries a year. PATIENTS--41,718 women with ultrasound dated singleton pregnancies and delivery between 168 and 300 days' gestation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Length of gestation, ethnic origin, parity, maternal height and weight at booking, smoking during pregnancy; the effect of these variables on birth weight. RESULTS--Birth weights from ultrasound dated pregnancies have a higher population mean and show less flattening of the birthweight curve at term than those of pregnancies dated from menstrual history. Significant differences were observed in mean birth weights of babies of mothers of European origin (3357 g), of Afro-Caribbean origin (3173 g), and from the Indian subcontinent (3096 g). There were also significant interethnic differences in length of gestation, parity, maternal height, booking weight, and smoking habit which affected birth weight. The ethnic differences in birth weight were even greater when the effect of smoking was excluded. CONCLUSIONS--Birthweight standards require precise dating of pregnancy and should describe the population from which they were derived. In a heterogeneous maternity population the accurate assessment of an individual baby's weight needs to take the factors which affect birthweight standards into consideration.

Full text

PDF
588

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Campbell S., Newman G. B. Growth of the fetal biparietal diameter during normal pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw. 1971 Jun;78(6):513–519. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1971.tb00309.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Campbell S., Warsof S. L., Little D., Cooper D. J. Routine ultrasound screening for the prediction of gestational age. Obstet Gynecol. 1985 May;65(5):613–620. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Gardosi J., Chang A., Kalyan B., Sahota D., Symonds E. M. Customised antenatal growth charts. Lancet. 1992 Feb 1;339(8788):283–287. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(92)91342-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Geirsson R. T., Busby-Earle R. M. Certain dates may not provide a reliable estimate of gestational age. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1991 Jan;98(1):108–109. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1991.tb10323.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Geirsson R. T. Ultrasound instead of last menstrual period as the basis of gestational age assignment. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1991 May 1;1(3):212–219. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1991.01030212.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Grundy M. F., Hood J., Newman G. B. Birth weight standards in a community of mixed racial origin. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1978 Jul;85(7):481–486. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1978.tb15618.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hall M. H., Carr-Hill R. A. The significance of uncertain gestation for obstetric outcome. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1985 May;92(5):452–460. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1985.tb01348.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Hall M. H. Definitions used in relation to gestational age. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 1990 Apr;4(2):123–128. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.1990.tb00625.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. LUBCHENCO L. O., HANSMAN C., DRESSLER M., BOYD E. INTRAUTERINE GROWTH AS ESTIMATED FROM LIVEBORN BIRTH-WEIGHT DATA AT 24 TO 42 WEEKS OF GESTATION. Pediatrics. 1963 Nov;32:793–800. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Persson P. H., Kullander S. Long-term experience of general ultrasound screening in pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1983 Aug 15;146(8):942–947. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(83)90970-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Robinson H. P., Fleming J. E. A critical evaluation of sonar "crown-rump length" measurements. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1975 Sep;82(9):702–710. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1975.tb00710.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Roemer V. M., Bühler K., Kieback D. G. Gestationszeit und Geburtsgewicht. 1. Mitteilung: Intrauterine Wachstumskurven. Z Geburtshilfe Perinatol. 1990 Nov-Dec;194(6):241–253. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Thomson A. M., Billewicz W. Z., Hytten F. E. The assessment of fetal growth. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw. 1968 Sep;75(9):903–916. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1968.tb01615.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Waldenström U., Axelsson O., Nilsson S. A comparison of the ability of a sonographically measured biparietal diameter and the last menstrual period to predict the spontaneous onset of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 1990 Sep;76(3 Pt 1):336–338. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Weiner C. P., Sabbagha R. E., Vaisrub N., Depp R. A hypothetical model suggesting suboptimal intrauterine growth in infants delivered preterm. Obstet Gynecol. 1985 Mar;65(3):323–326. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Wilcox M. A., Johnson I. R., Maynard P. V., Smith S. J., Chilvers C. E. The individualised birthweight ratio: a more logical outcome measure of pregnancy than birthweight alone. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1993 Apr;100(4):342–347. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1993.tb12977.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Yudkin P. L., Aboualfa M., Eyre J. A., Redman C. W., Wilkinson A. R. New birthweight and head circumference centiles for gestational ages 24 to 42 weeks. Early Hum Dev. 1987 Jan;15(1):45–52. doi: 10.1016/0378-3782(87)90099-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from BMJ : British Medical Journal are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES