LEADING ARTICLE
Controversy
Neonatal anthropometric charts: what they are, what they are not
1 Cattedra di Neonatologia, Dipartimento di Scienze Pediatriche, Università di Torino, Turin, Italy
2 Istituto di Statistica Medica e Biometria, Università di Milano, Milan, Italy
3 Dipartimento di Scienze Ginecologiche, Perinatologia e Puericultura, Università La Sapienza, Rome, Italy
Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
M De Curtis
Dipartimento di Scienze Ginecologiche, Policlinico Umberto I, Via del Policlinico 155, 00161 Rome, Italy;decurtis@unina.it
Accepted 12 June 2006
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Over 40 years have elapsed since Lubchenco et al1 proposed an anthropometric classification of neonates based on the so-called intrauterine growth charts—that is, birth weight-for-gestational age charts.
The use of charts, such as those given by Lubchenco et al,1 based on the distribution of measurements taken on neonates with different gestational age, should be restricted to the auxological assessment of babies at birth. These charts, now called neonatal anthropometric charts, must not be confused with the intrauterine growth charts, which are a tool for monitoring fetal growth, based on ultrasound measurements of anthropometric traits during pregnancy: preterm births are abnormal events and preterm neonates cannot be equated to fetuses of the same gestational age who will be born at term.2 When fetal growth studies are longitudinal, both distance and velocity intrauterine growth charts may be traced.3,4 Strictly speaking, only charts derived from longitudinal studies should be called growth
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Bertino, E, Giuliani, F, Occhi, L, Spada, E, DeCurtis, M, Coscia, A, Fabris, C, Milani, S
(2009). Benchmarking neonatal anthropometric charts published in the last decade. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed.
94: F233-F233
[Full Text] -
Joseph, K. S., Fahey, J., Platt, R. W., Liston, R. M., Lee, S. K., Sauve, R., Liu, S., Allen, A. C., Kramer, M. S.
(2009). An Outcome-based Approach for the Creation of Fetal Growth Standards: Do Singletons and Twins Need Separate Standards?. Am J Epidemiol
169: 616-624
[Abstract] [Full Text]
- Full Text
- Full Text (PDF)
- Submit a response
- Alert me when this article is cited
- Alert me when eLetters are posted
- Alert me if a correction is posted
- Citation Map
Services
- Email this link to a friend
- Similar articles in ADC Online
- Similar articles in PubMed
- Add article to my folders
- Download to citation manager
- Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Google Scholar
PubMed
Topic Collections
Bookmark with
Register for free content
The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.
Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.
