Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Maternal anthropometric measurements as predictors of low birth weight in developing and developed countries

  • Maternal-Fetal Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the possibility of using maternal anthropometric measurements for prediction of low birth weight in developing and developed countries.

Methods

Bivariate diagnostic meta-analysis was performed with hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves. Ten databases, i.e., PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Wiley InterScience, ProQuest Health and Medical Complete™, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database, the entire Cochrane Library (e.g., CENTRAL), Google Scholar, and Scopus were searched. The references and PubMed-related citations of potentially eligible articles and reviews were also investigated.

Results

With regard to maternal height, weight, arm circumference, abdominal circumference, body mass index (BMI), and weight gain, 111, 126, 25, 4, 131, and 59 studies extracted from 49, 38, 12, 1, 50, and 23 data sources, respectively, were finally included in the analysis. The sensitivity [=0.46, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.35–0.52 to 0.64, 95 % CI 0.56–0.71], specificity (=0.46, 95 % CI 0.38–0.54 to 0.72, 95 % CI 0.64–0.79) and diagnostic odds ratios (=2, 95 % CI 1–2 to 3, 95 % CI 3–4) for maternal height, weight, arm circumferences, BMI, and weight gain were low and 95 % confidence and prediction regions were too large for practical use. The findings for abdominal circumference were not generalizable because only one data source was available.

Conclusions

There is no evidence that maternal anthropometric measurements are good predictors of low birth weight.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. World Health Organization (2014) Feto-maternal nutrition and low birth weight. http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/feto_maternal/en/. Accessed 18 March 2015

  2. Temerinac D, Chen X, Sütterlin M et al (2014) Influence of fetal birth weight on perinatal outcome in planned vaginal births. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2014:313–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Colman A, Maharaj D, Hutton J et al (2006) Reliability of ultrasound estimation of fetal weight in term singleton pregnancies. NZ Med J 119:U2146

    Google Scholar 

  4. Scioscia M, Scioscia F, Scioscia G et al (2015) Statistical limits in sonographic estimation of birth weight. Arch Gynecol Obstet 291:59–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Malin G, Anblagan D, Bugg G et al (2014) PM. 39 diagnostic accuracy of antenatal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to predict birth weight 90th or 10th centile in the third trimester. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 99(Suppl 1):94–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Goto E (2013) Prediction of low birthweight and small for gestational age from symphysis-fundal height mainly in developing countries: a meta-analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health 67:999–1005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Peregrine E, O’Brien P, Jauniaux E (2007) Clinical and ultrasound estimation of birth weight prior to induction of labor at term. Ultrasound Obstet Gyncol 29:304–309

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Baum JD, Gussman D, Wirth JC 3rd (2002) Clinical and patient estimation of fetal weight vs. ultrasound estimation. J Reprod Med 47:194–198

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Goto E Diagnostic value of maternal anthropometric measurements for predicating low birthweight in developing countries: a meta-analysis. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr (in press)

  10. World Health Organization (1995) Maternal anthropometry and pregnancy outcome. A WHO collaborative study. Bull World Health Organ 73(Suppl):1–98

    Google Scholar 

  11. World Health Organization (2006) The WHO child growth standards. http://www.who.int/childgrowth/en/. Accessed 18 March 2015

  12. Villar J, Cheikh Ismail L, Victora CG (2014) 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 384:857–868

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Papageorghiou AT, Kennedy SH, Salomon LJ (2014) International standards for early fetal size and pregnancy dating based on ultrasound measurement of crown–rump length in the first trimester of pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 44:641–648

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. The Oxford Maternal and Perinatal Health Institute, Green Templeton College, University of Oxford (2008) INTERGROWTH-21st Project. http://www.intergrowth21.org.uk/. Accessed 18 March 2015

  15. Falck-Ytter Y, Motschall E (2004) New search filter for diagnostic studies: Ovid and Pubmed versions not the same. BMJ 328:1040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB et al (2003) The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 3:25

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Harbord RM, Whiting P (2009) Metandi: meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy using hierarchical logistic regression. In: Sterne JAC (ed) Meta-analysis in Stata: an updated collection from the Stata Journal. Stata Press, Texas, pp 181–199

    Google Scholar 

  18. Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW et al (2005) Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 58:982–990

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Arends LR, Hamza TH, van Houwelingen JC et al (2008) Bivariate random effects meta-analysis of ROC curves. Med Decis Making 28:621–638

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Sackett DL (1994) Users’ guides to medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? The evidence-based medicine working group. JAMA 271:703–707

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Swets JA (1988) Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 240:1285–1293

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ et al (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557–560

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2012) The DAC list of ODA recipients. http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/49483614.pdf. Accessed 18 March 2015

  24. Ljimer JG, Mol BM, Heisterkap S et al (1999) Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA 282:1061–1066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Di Nisio M et al (2006) Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies. CMAJ 174:469–476

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Deeks JJ, Macaskill P, Irwig L (2005) The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol 58:882–893

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Akobeng AK (2007) Understanding diagnostic tests 3: receiver operating characteristic curves. Acta Paediatr 96:644–647

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Janjua NZ, Delzell E, Larson RR et al (2009) Determinants of low birth weight in urban Pakistan. Public Health Nutr 12:789–798

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Villar J, Papageorghiou AT, Pang R et al (2014) The likeness of fetal growth and newborn size across non-isolated populations in the INTERGROWTH-21st project: the fetal growth longitudinal study and newborn cross-sectional study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2:781–792

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gardosi J, Figueras F, Clausson B et al (2011) The customised growth potential: an international research tool to study the epidemiology of fetal growth. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 25:2–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hutcheon JA, Zhang X, Cnattingius S et al (2008) Customised birthweight percentiles: does adjusting for maternal characteristics matter? BJOG 115:1397–1404

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG (2001) Systematic reviews in healthcare: meta-analysis in context, 2nd edn. BMJ, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  33. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (2009) 2.2 Diagnostic tests. In: Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/pdf/Systematic_Reviews.pdf. Accessed 18 March 2015

  34. Diagnostic Test Accuracy Working Group (2009) Handbook for DTA reviews. The cochrane collaboration. http://srdta.cochrane.org/handbook-dta-reviews. Accessed 18 March 2015

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to the personnel of the Medical Library at the Japan Medical Association (Tokyo, Japan) who contributed to article retrieval. This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nagoya Medical Science Research Institute, 1-118 Kamenoi, Meitou-ku, Nagoya, 465-0094, Japan

    Eita Goto

Authors
  1. Eita Goto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eita Goto.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 47 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Goto, E. Maternal anthropometric measurements as predictors of low birth weight in developing and developed countries. Arch Gynecol Obstet 292, 829–842 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-015-3721-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-015-3721-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation