Journals / Anatolian Current Medical Journal / 2026 / Volume: 8 Issue: 6

Distributional calibration of the INTERGROWTH-21st newborn standards in a Turkish tertiary birth cohort

Ömer Osman Eroğlu(Ankara Etlik Şehir Hastanesi)0000-0001-9861-6767
Cansın Eroğlu(Ankara Etlik City Hospital)0009-0004-5049-1415
Sait Erbey(Ankara Etlik City Hospital)0009-0007-1950-9041
Mehmet Alican Sapmaz(Ankara Etlik City Hospital)0000-0003-3812-3455
Murat Polat(Ankara Etlik City Hospital)0009-0002-2964-729X
Çağanay Soysal(Ankara Etlik City Hospital)0000-0002-4381-6099
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-10-25
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Because classification is sensitive to the assumed day, prevalence from week-only registries should be reported with that assumption.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aims: To assess the fit of the INTERGROWTH-21st newborn standards to the birth weight distribution of a Turkish tertiary cohort.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: Retrospective analysis of 41 967 live singleton births at 24-42 gestational weeks (2022-2026), classified as small (SGA) or large for gestational age (LGA) with the INTERGROWTH-21st standard (≥33 weeks) and very preterm reference (<33 weeks).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Because classification is sensitive to the assumed day, prevalence from week-only registries should be reported with that assumption.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2022-2026 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Infant · small for gestational age · growth charts

Abstract

Aims: To assess the fit of the INTERGROWTH-21st newborn standards to the birth weight distribution of a Turkish tertiary cohort. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 41 967 live singleton births at 24-42 gestational weeks (2022-2026), classified as small (SGA) or large for gestational age (LGA) with the INTERGROWTH-21st standard (≥33 weeks) and very preterm reference (<33 weeks). Gestational age was recorded in completed weeks; the mid-week (week+3) value was used and all seven day assumptions tested. Proportions at seven percentiles were compared with nominal values by exact binomial tests; a probit fit gave location and scale estimates. Results: SGA prevalence was 8.3% and LGA 10.3%; the z-score distribution was estimated as mean +0.07, standard deviation 0.97. After correction for multiple comparisons, departures were confined to the lower half (below the median 45.9% vs 50%; all p<0.001); upper-tail proportions stayed close to nominal. Under the mid-week assumption 3479 newborns were SGA, 718 fewer than the 4197 expected at 10%. Across the seven assumptions SGA prevalence ranged from 5.8% to 11.0%, reclassifying up to 4547 newborns (10.8%). Adolescent maternal age [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.49; 95% CI 1.31-1.71] and foreign nationality (aOR 1.28; 1.17-1.40) remained associated with SGA. Conclusion: Under the prespecified mid-week assumption, the standards fit this cohort closely but classify 718 fewer newborns as SGA than the nominal 10% implies, leaving them outside the threshold that prompts further assessment. Because classification is sensitive to the assumed day, prevalence from week-only registries should be reported with that assumption.

🔖

Cite This Article

Eroğlu, Ö. O., Eroğlu, C., Erbey, S., Sapmaz, M. A., Erbey, B., Polat, M., Soysal, Ç. (2026). Distributional calibration of the INTERGROWTH-21st newborn standards in a Turkish tertiary birth cohort. Anatolian Current Medical Journal, Volume: 8 Issue: 6. https://ajindex.com/articles/1667854

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Lee AC, Kozuki N, Cousens S, et al. Estimates of burden and consequences of infants born small for gestational age in low and middle income countries with INTERGROWTH-21st standard: analysis of CHERG datasets. BMJ. 2017;358:j3677. doi:10.1136/bmj.j3677
  2. Suárez-Idueta L, Blencowe H, Okwaraji YB, et al. Neonatal mortality risk for vulnerable newborn types in 15 countries using 125.5 million nationwide birth outcome records, 2000-2020. BJOG. 2025;132(suppl 8):S37-S47. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.17506
  3. Villar J, Cheikh Ismail L, Victora CG, et al. 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. 2014;384(9946):857-868. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60932-6
  4. Villar J, Giuliani F, Fenton TR, et al. INTERGROWTH-21st very preterm size at birth reference charts. Lancet. 2016;387(10021):844-845. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00384-6
  5. Gordijn SJ, Beune IM, Thilaganathan B, et al. Consensus definition of fetal growth restriction: a Delphi procedure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;48(3):333-339. doi:10.1002/uog.15884
  6. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet. 2007; 370(9596):1453-1457. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X
  7. Heidari S, Babor TF, De Castro P, Tort S, Curno M. Sex and gender equity in research: rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2016;1:2. doi:10.1186/s41073-016-0007-6
  8. Barreto CM, Pereira MAL, Rolim ACB, Abbas SA, Langhi Junior DM, Santos AMND. Incidence of small for gestational age neonates, according to the Fenton and INTERGROWTH-21st curves in a level II maternity. Rev Paul Pediatr. 2021;39:e2019245. doi:10.1590/1984-0462/2021/39/2019245
  9. Revollo GB, Martínez JI, Grandi C, Alfaro EL, Dipierri JE. Prevalence of underweight and small for gestational age in Argentina: comparison between the INTERGROWTH-21st standard and an Argentine reference. Arch Argent Pediatr. 2017;115(6):547-555. doi:10.5546/aap.2017.eng.547
  10. Odibo AO, Nwabuobi C, Odibo L, Leavitt K, Obican S, Tuuli MG. Customized fetal growth standard compared with the INTERGROWTH-21st century standard at predicting small-for-gestational-age neonates. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018;97(11):1381-1387. doi:10.1111/aogs.13394
  11. Topçu HO, Güzel Aİ, Ozgü E, Yıldız Y, Erkaya S, Uygur D. Birth weight for gestational age: a reference study in a tertiary referral hospital in the middle region of Turkey. J Chin Med Assoc. 2014;77(11):578-582. doi:10.1016/j.jcma.2014.05.013
  12. Kozuki N, Lee AC, Silveira MF, et al. The associations of parity and maternal age with small-for-gestational-age, preterm, and neonatal and infant mortality: a meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(suppl 3):S2. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-S3-S2
  13. Ozel S, Yaman S, Kansu-Celik H, Hancerliogullari N, Balci N, Engin-Ustun Y. Obstetric outcomes among Syrian refugees: a comparative study at a tertiary care maternity hospital in Turkey. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2018;40(11):673-679. doi:10.1055/s-0038-1673427
  14. Turkay Ü, Aydın Ü, Salıcı M, et al. Comparison of pregnant Turkish women and Syrian refugees: does living as a refugee have an unfavorable effect on pregnancy outcomes? Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2020;149(2):160-165. doi:10.1002/ijgo.13117
  15. Sayili U, Ozgur C, Bulut Gazanfer O, Solmaz A. Comparison of clinical characteristics and pregnancy and neonatal outcomes between Turkish citizens and Syrian refugees with high-risk pregnancies. J Immigr Minor Health. 2022;24(5):1177-1185. doi:10.1007/s10903-021-01288-3
  16. Şahin Uysal N, Gülümser Ç, Bilgin Yanık F. Maternal and perinatal characteristics of small-for-gestational-age newborns: ten-year experience of a single center. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2017;18(2):90-95. doi:10.4274/jtgga.2016.0228
  17. Gardosi J, Hugh O. Stillbirth risk and smallness for gestational age according to Hadlock, INTERGROWTH-21st, WHO, and GROW fetal weight standards: analysis by maternal ethnicity and body mass index. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2023;229(5):547.e1-547.e13. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2023.05.026