For analog reasons, “the World Health Organization recommended that a reference for GWG be based on prospective longitudinal studies of selected populations with a low incidence of maternal and fetal complications”. This view “strongly supported the need to also develop international standards to assess growth patterns in the prenatal period”. It was claimed that “children born in different regions of the world, when given the optimum start in life, have the potential to grow and develop to within the same range of height and weight for their age”. These standards have meanwhile been adopted by over 140 countries and they are used “as the common yardstick to assess and monitor child growth” as they are supposed to assess whether children are growing and developing as they should. that both infant and child growth are more affected by health, socioeconomic status, and environmental conditions than by ethnic differences, international growth standards for infants and children have been developed. The authors then discussed GWG in the women from the central area of Nagpur, India, that were recruited by the INTERGROWTH–21st study.īased on an assumption published half a century ago by Habicht et al. The proportion of GWG <10th centile remained similar in both the low-risk and the unselected population. Yet in opposition to common expectations, the authors failed to attribute the low GWG of their sample to any social or economic circumstances. As the women largely belonged to the lower socioeconomic strata (44%) with less than 1% being classified as upper class, the authors also selected a small subset of “low-risk” participants using similar exclusion criteria as used by INTERGROWTH–21st. This percentage increased to 45% at delivery. Nearly 26% of the Indian women stayed below the 10th centile for GWG at 18–20 weeks of gestation. The authors observed that GWG in Indian women was significantly less than prescribed by the INTERGROWTH–21st reference. described the pattern of gestational weight gain (GWG) in a prospective pregnancy (GARBH-Ini) cohort from Gurugram Civil Hospital, Haryana, a district hospital in Gurugram, North India, including sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, and compared their findings with the INTERGROWTH–21st reference. Recently, Ramachandran Thiruvengadam et al. The study is a strong motivator for establishing local references for GWG. ![]() Particularly in view of historic data as an additional source of information, it is highly recommended to incorporate ethnic characteristics in clinical decisions when assessing the individual weight gain of a pregnant woman. The study questions the primacy of western estimates of an appropriate GWG. The cumulative GWG of obese Northern Indian women was even smaller. Whereas INTERGROWTH–21st prescribes an average cumulative GWG of 7.47 kg (week 28), 9.52 kg (week 32), 11.58 kg (week 36), and 13.69 kg (week 40), normal weight Northern Indian women have an average cumulative GWG of 4.95 kg (week 28), 6.43 kg (week 32), 7.87 kg (week 36), and 8.8 kg (week 40). described the pattern of gestational weight gain (GWG) in a prospective pregnancy (GARBH-Ini) cohort from Gurugram Civil Hospital, Gurugram, North India, and compared their findings with the INTERGROWTH–21st reference.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |