Customized Versus Population-Based Birth Weight Charts for the Detection of Neonatal Growth and Perinatal Morbidity in a Cross-Sectional Study of Term Neonates

Abstract

Customized birth weight charts that incorporate maternal characteristics are now being adopted into clinical practice. However, there is controversy surrounding the value of these charts in the prediction of growth and perinatal outcomes. The objective of this study was to assess the use of customized charts in predicting growth, defined by body fat percentage, and perinatal morbidity. A total of 581 term (≥37 weeks' gestation) neonates born in Sydney, Australia, in 2010 were included. Body fat percentage measurements were taken by using air displacement plethysmography. Objective composite measurements of perinatal morbidity were used to identify neonates who had poor outcomes; these data were extracted from medical records. The value of customized charts was assessed by calculating positive predictive values, negative predictive values, and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Customized versus population-based charts did not improve the prediction of either low body fat percentage (59% vs. 66% positive predictive value and 87% vs. 89% negative predictive value, respectively) or high body fat percentage (48% vs. 53% positive predictive value and 90% vs. 89% negative predictive value, respectively). Customized charts were not better than population-based charts at predicting perinatal morbidity (for customized charts, odds ratio = 1.02, 95% confidence interval: 1.01, 1.04; for population-based charts, odds ratio = 1.03, 95% confidence interval: 1.01, 1.05) per percentile decrease in birth weight. Customized birth weight charts do not provide significant improvements over population-based charts in predicting neonatal growth and morbidity.