WIDENING the definition of "at risk" babies based on predicted birth weight may reduce the number of stillbirths and infant deaths, according to new research.
A Glasgow University study, published in PLOS Medicine, found that babies with a birth weight in the lowest 25 per cent and those in the heaviest 15 per cent are are at greater risk of stillbirths and infant deaths.
The study suggests that closer surveillance, or earlier delivery of babies with these predicted birth weight, may reduce these adverse outcomes.
In developed countries, like the UK, one-third of stillbirths and infant deaths still occur at full term babies. However, there is no consensus on what defines a small or large foetus or infant at term and what birth-weight thresholds should trigger surveillance or intervention. However, currently only the top and bottom 10 per cent are considered to be in danger.
The research, led by Dr Stamatina lliodromiti from Glasgow University's School of Medicine, was based on data from 979,912 term single-infant pregnancies over a 19-year period in Scotland.
It examined associations of birth weight centiles - also known as percentiles - with stillbirth, infant mortality, admission to the neonatal unit and low Apgar score, an assessment of a baby’s overall well-being at birth.
Dr Iliodromiti said: “Currently babies that are predicted to be too small (most frequently less than the 10th centile) or too large (most frequently over the 90th centile) are considered at risk.
“We provide convincing evidence that how we define whether a baby is too small or too large needs to be re-visited. We anticipate that by redefining this, we can continue to reduce stillbirths.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here