Skip Navigation

Journal of Tropical Pediatrics 1998 44(6):355-357; doi:10.1093/tropej/44.6.355
© 1998 by Oxford University Press
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rondó, P. H. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rondó, P. H. C.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


research-article

Weight, Length, Ponderal Index, and Intrauterine Growth Retardation in Brazil

P. H. C. Rondó, Ph.D.

Nutrition Department, School of Public Health, University of São Paulo Brazil

Patricia Helen de Carvalho Rondá, Nutrition Department, School of Public Health, University of São Paulo, Avenida Dr Arnaldo 715, Sao Paulo, 0124–6904, Brazil. Fax 00 55 11 282 2653. E-mail phcrondo{at}usp.br

The objective of this study was to classify intrauterine growth-retarded (IUGR) newborn babies from an urban region in Brazil into four different subtypes, according to their weight, length, and ponderal index (PI). Three hundred and fifty-six (356) babies were differentiated by this classification into IUGR subtypes A (short length and adequate PI), B (adequate length and low PI), C (short length and low PI), and D (adequate length and adequate PI), by the Lubchenco weight, length, and PI for gestational age standards. Gestational age of the babies was determined by the Capurro method. Anthropometric measurements were taken according to the Jelliffe and Jelliffe recommendations. Ninety-eight per cent of the IUGR babies included in the study were type I (proportional): 48 per cent of them were subtype A and 50 per cent subtype D (slightly thin). Subtypes B and C comprised 1.4 per cent and 0.6 per cent of the babies respectively. This classification of IUGR is of great importance, considering that these four subtypes probably reflect the stages of pregnancy at which the babies were affected by adverse growth and development factors. The risk factors for the different subtypes of IUGR, and examination of their predictive value for subsequent morbidity, growth, development, and mortality, will be of interest.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.