Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2021; 38(01): 076-081
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1694761
Original Article

Smallness at Birth and Neonatal Death: Reexamining the Current Indicator Using Sibling Data

Maya Tabet
1   Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Saint Louis University College for Public Health and Social Justice, St. Louis, Missouri
,
Louise H. Flick
1   Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Saint Louis University College for Public Health and Social Justice, St. Louis, Missouri
,
Hong Xian
1   Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Saint Louis University College for Public Health and Social Justice, St. Louis, Missouri
,
Chang Jen Jen
1   Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Saint Louis University College for Public Health and Social Justice, St. Louis, Missouri
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The similarity in size among siblings has implications for neonatal death, but research in this area is lacking in the United States. We examined the association between small-for-gestational age (SGA), defined as a birthweight <10th percentile for gestational age, and neonatal death, defined as death within the first 28 days of life, among second births who had an elder sibling with SGA (“repeaters”) versus those whose elder sibling did not have SGA (“nonrepeaters”).

Study Design We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study including 179,436 women who had their first two nonanomalous singleton live births in Missouri (1989–2005). Logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between SGA and neonatal death among second births, stratified by whether the elder sibling was SGA.

Results Out of 179,436 second births, 297 died in the neonatal period. There was a significant interaction between birthweight-for-gestational age of first and second births in relation to neonatal death (p = 0.001). Second births with SGA had increased odds of neonatal death by 2.15-fold if they were “repeaters,” and 4.44-fold if they were “nonrepeaters,” as compared with non-SGA second births.

Conclusion Our findings suggest that referencing sibling birthweight may be warranted when evaluating infant size in relation to neonatal death.

Keywords

birthweight - Missouri - neonatal death - sibling data


Publication History

Received: 25 April 2019

Accepted: 09 July 2019

Article published online:
14 August 2019

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Sharma D, Shastri S, Sharma P. Intrauterine growth restriction: antenatal and postnatal aspects. Clin Med Insights Pediatr 2016; 10: 67-83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Cnattingius S, Kramer MS, Norman M, Ludvigsson JF, Fang F, Lu D. Keep it in the family: comparing perinatal risks in small-for-gestational-age infants based on population vs within-sibling designs. Int J Epidemiol 2019; 48 (01) 297-306
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Alexander GR, Kogan MD, Himes JH. 1994-1996 U.S. singleton birth weight percentiles for gestational age by race, Hispanic origin, and gender. Matern Child Health J 1999; 3 (04) 225-231
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Cnattingius S, Kramer MS, Norman M, Ludvigsson JF, Fang F, Lu D. Investigating fetal growth restriction and perinatal risks in appropriate for gestational age infants: using cohort and within-sibling analyses. BJOG 2019; 126 (07) 842-850
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Bakketeig LS, Hoffman HJ. The tendency to repeat gestational age and birth weight in successive births, related to perinatal survival. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1983; 62 (05) 385-392
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Skjaerven R, Wilcox AJ, Russell D. Birthweight and perinatal mortality of second births conditional on weight of the first. Int J Epidemiol 1988; 17 (04) 830-838
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Melve KK, Skjaerven R. Birthweight and perinatal mortality: paradoxes, social class, and sibling dependencies. Int J Epidemiol 2003; 32 (04) 625-632
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Skjaerven R, Gjessing HK, Bakketeig LS. New standards for birth weight by gestational age using family data. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 183 (03) 689-696
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Skjaerven R, Bakketeig LS. Classification of small-for-gestational age births: weight-by-gestation standards of second birth conditional on the size of the first. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 1989; 3 (04) 432-447
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Bakketeig LS, Jacobsen G, Skjaerven R, Carneiro IG, Knudsen LB. Low birthweight and mortality: the tendency to repeat low birthweight and its association with early neonatal and infant morbidity and mortality. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2006; 20 (06) 507-511
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Pedersen CB, Sun Y, Vestergaard M, Olsen J, Basso O. Assessing fetal growth impairments based on family data as a tool for identifying high-risk babies. An example with neonatal mortality. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2007; 7: 28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Herman AA, McCarthy BJ, Bakewell JM. et al. Data linkage methods used in maternally-linked birth and infant death surveillance data sets from the United States (Georgia, Missouri, Utah and Washington State), Israel, Norway, Scotland and Western Australia. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 1997; 11 (Suppl. 01) 5-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Matthews TJ, MacDorman MF. Infant mortality statistics from the 2010 period linked birth/infant death data set. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2013; 62 (08) 1-26
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Ananth CV, Basso O. Impact of pregnancy-induced hypertension on stillbirth and neonatal mortality. Epidemiology 2010; 21 (01) 118-123
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kc K, Shakya S, Zhang H. Gestational diabetes mellitus and macrosomia: a literature review. Ann Nutr Metab 2015; 66 (Suppl. 02) 14-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Child Health USA 2013. Rockville, Maryland: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 17 World Health Organization (WHO). International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems 10th revision (ICD-10). 2015 . Accessed April 2017 at: http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2015/en#/XV
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Lackman F, Capewell V, Richardson B, daSilva O, Gagnon R. The risks of spontaneous preterm delivery and perinatal mortality in relation to size at birth according to fetal versus neonatal growth standards. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 184 (05) 946-953
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kotelchuck M. The Adequacy of Prenatal Care Utilization Index: its US distribution and association with low birthweight. Am J Public Health 1994; 84 (09) 1486-1489
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Ananth CV. Menstrual versus clinical estimate of gestational age dating in the United States: temporal trends and variability in indices of perinatal outcomes. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2007; 21 (Suppl. 02) 22-30
    Google Scholar
  • 21 World Health Organization. Obesity and overweight. Fact Sheet No. 311. 2015 . Accessed January 28, 2016 at: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/#
    Google Scholar
  • 22 IOM (Institute of Medicine); NRC (National Research Council). Weight Gain During Pregnancy: Reexamining the Guidelines. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 23 VanderWeele TJ, Knol MJ. A tutorial on interaction. Epidemiol Methods 2014; 3 (01) 33-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Wilber ST, Fu R. Risk ratios and odds ratios for common events in cross-sectional and cohort studies. Acad Emerg Med 2010; 17 (06) 649-651
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Hoffman HJ, Bakketeig LS. Heterogeneity of intrauterine growth retardation and recurrence risks. Semin Perinatol 1984; 8 (01) 15-24
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Basso O, Frydenberg M, Olsen SF, Olsen J. Two definitions of “small size at birth” as predictors of motor development at six months. Epidemiology 2005; 16 (05) 657-663
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Bakketeig LS. “Repeater” studies – Development of a new research field. Norsk Epidemiol 2007; 17 (02) 153-156
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Dua A, Schram C. An investigation into the applicability of customised charts for the assessment of fetal growth in antenatal population at Blackburn, Lancashire, UK. J Obstet Gynaecol 2006; 26 (05) 411-413
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 McCowan L, Stewart AW, Francis A, Gardosi J. A customised birthweight centile calculator developed for a New Zealand population. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2004; 44 (05) 428-431
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Gardosi J, Francis A. A customized standard to assess fetal growth in a US population. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 201 (01) 25.e1-25.e7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Mongelli M, Figueras F, Francis A, Gardosi J. A customized birthweight centile calculator developed for an Australian population. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2007; 47 (02) 128-131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Figueras F, Meler E, Iraola A. et al. Customized birthweight standards for a Spanish population. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2008; 136 (01) 20-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Reichman NE, Schwartz-Soicher O. Accuracy of birth certificate data by risk factors and outcomes: analysis of data from New Jersey. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 197 (01) 32.e1-32.e8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Reichman NE, Hade EM. Validation of birth certificate data. A study of women in New Jersey's HealthStart program. Ann Epidemiol 2001; 11 (03) 186-193
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Kramer MS, Platt RW, Yang H, Haglund B, Cnattingius S, Bergsjo P. Registration artifacts in international comparisons of infant mortality. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2002; 16 (01) 16-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Nordtveit TI, Melve KK, Skjaerven R. Mothers' and fathers' birth characteristics and perinatal mortality in their offspring: a population-based cohort study. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2010; 24 (03) 282-292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Almond D, Chay KY, Lee DS. Does low birth weight matter? Evidence from the U.S. population of twin births. Center for Labor Economics University of California, Berkeley Working paper no 53. 2002
    Google Scholar