scholarly journals Comparison of clinical assessment of nutritional status (CAN) score with other methods in the assessment of fetal malnutrition

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 713 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Amarendra ◽  
M. Yoganand
Keyword(s):  
Nutritional Status ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Clinical Assessment ◽  
Gestational Age ◽  
Ponderal Index ◽  
Future Health ◽  
New Born ◽  
Fetal Malnutrition ◽  
Gestational Age At Birth ◽  
Age At Birth

Background: Assessment of nutritional status of new born has been a major concern to many clinicians because of the potentially serious sequelae of malnutrition on multiple organ system and future health. Various methods have been used to identify malnourished babies as early as possible. The objective of the study was to assess the nutritional status of new born at birth using CAN score and to compare the utility of CAN score with other commonly used measures for defining nutritional status of new borns like weight for gestational age, Ponderal index and Kanawati index.Methods: The present study is a hospital based cross sectional study consisting of 250 singleton full term with no major congenital malformations. Clinical assessment of nutritional status was done on the basis of CAN score and compared with other methods like weight for gestational age, Ponderal index and Kanawati index.Results: Out of 250 babies, CAN score detected 171 (68.4%) babies as malnourished, weight for gestational age at birth detected 150 (60%) babies as AGA and 100 (40%) babies as SGA. Based on Ponderal index and Kanawati index, 154 (61.6%) babies and 140 (56%) babies were malnourished respectively. Using CAN score as the gold standard for identifying fetal malnutrition, the sensitivity and specificity of weight for gestational age at birth were 51% and 21.5%, the sensitivity and specificity of Ponderal index were 69.5% and 55.6% and the sensitivity and specificity of MAC/HC (Kanawati index) were 77.7% and 91.1%.Conclusions: CAN score is a simple, systemic method of identifying fetal malnutrition. This method does not require any sophisticated equipments or laborious calculations and is a good indicator in comparison with other methods of determining fetal malnutrition. 

scholarly journals Prenatal household air pollutant exposure is associated with reduced size and gestational age at birth among a cohort of Ghanaian infants

2021 ◽  
Vol 155 ◽  
pp. 106659
Author(s):  
Ashlinn K. Quinn ◽  
Irene Apewe Adjei ◽  
Kenneth Ayuurebobi Ae-Ngibise ◽  
Oscar Agyei ◽  
Ellen Abrafi Boamah-Kaali ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gestational Age ◽  
Air Pollutant ◽  
Gestational Age At Birth ◽  
Age At Birth

Coeliac disease presenting atypically: A much wider spectrum

2021 ◽  
pp. 004947552199134
Author(s):  
Avinash Lomash ◽  
Abhinaya Venkatakrishnan ◽  
Meenakshi Bothra ◽  
Bhavna Dhingra ◽  
Praveen Kumar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Coeliac Disease ◽  
Gestational Age ◽  
Dermatitis Herpetiformis ◽  
Mode Of Delivery ◽  
Gastrointestinal Symptoms ◽  
Stunted Growth ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
High Index Of Suspicion ◽  
Gestational Age At Birth ◽  
Age At Birth

Atypical coeliac disease in young children is frequently missed when it presents atypically as non-gastrointestinal presentations to different specialties. There was a greater delay (54 months) in establishing the diagnosis in those with atypical coeliac disease (p < 0.001). No difference was observed in the mode of delivery or duration of breast feeding, but significant difference was observed between gestational age at birth (p < 0.001). Most cases showed stunted growth and underweight. Irritability, anaemia, rickets, dermatitis herpetiformis, alopecia and intussusception were other common predictors of atypical coeliac disease. Because of a myriad spectrum of non-gastrointestinal symptoms, at any age with diverse presentation, a high index of suspicion is therefore required.

scholarly journals Maternal biological age assessed in early pregnancy is associated with gestational age at birth

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva E. Lancaster ◽  
Dana M. Lapato ◽  
Colleen Jackson-Cook ◽  
Jerome F. Strauss ◽  
Roxann Roberson-Nay ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Preterm Birth ◽  
Early Pregnancy ◽  
Gestational Age ◽  
Cellular Aging ◽  
Biological Age ◽  
Potential Candidate ◽  
A Genome ◽  
Gestational Age At Birth ◽  
Age At Birth

AbstractMaternal age is an established predictor of preterm birth independent of other recognized risk factors. The use of chronological age makes the assumption that individuals age at a similar rate. Therefore, it does not capture interindividual differences that may exist due to genetic background and environmental exposures. As a result, there is a need to identify biomarkers that more closely index the rate of cellular aging. One potential candidate is biological age (BA) estimated by the DNA methylome. This study investigated whether maternal BA, estimated in either early and/or late pregnancy, predicts gestational age at birth. BA was estimated from a genome-wide DNA methylation platform using the Horvath algorithm. Linear regression methods assessed the relationship between BA and pregnancy outcomes, including gestational age at birth and prenatal perceived stress, in a primary and replication cohort. Prenatal BA estimates from early pregnancy explained variance in gestational age at birth above and beyond the influence of other recognized preterm birth risk factors. Sensitivity analyses indicated that this signal was driven primarily by self-identified African American participants. This predictive relationship was sensitive to small variations in the BA estimation algorithm. Benefits and limitations of using BA in translational research and clinical applications for preterm birth are considered.

scholarly journals 512: Are appropriately sized fetuses who “fall off the curve” at increased risk for small-for-gestational age at birth?

2018 ◽  
Vol 218 (1) ◽  
pp. S306-S307
Author(s):  
Nathan R. Blue ◽  
Mariam Savabi ◽  
Meghan E. Beddow ◽  
Vivek R. Katukuri ◽  
Cody M. Fritts ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gestational Age ◽  
Small For Gestational Age ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Gestational Age At Birth ◽  
Age At Birth

Cost of neonatal care according to gestational age at birth and survival status

2000 ◽  
Vol 182 (1) ◽  
pp. 170-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elaine B. St. John ◽  
Kathleen G. Nelson ◽  
Suzanne P. Cliver ◽  
Rita R. Bishnoi ◽  
Robert L. Goldenberg
Keyword(s):  
Gestational Age ◽  
Neonatal Care ◽  
Survival Status ◽  
Gestational Age At Birth ◽  
Age At Birth
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document