­
medigraphic.com
ISSN 0035-0052 (Print)

2005, Number 6

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Pediatr 2005; 72 (6)

An optional method for birthweight analysis in a population

Padilla N, Buekens P

Language: Spanish
References: 22
Page: 287-291
PDF size: 147.52 Kb.


ABSTRACT

In Mexico, differences of altitude between regions makes birthweight data difficult to interpret. An alternative method of analysis developed by Wilcox separates a main distribution from a residual. One of the theoretical advantages of the residual distribution is its independence from altitude.
Objectives. To measure the main and residual distribution of birthweight among newborns born in Celaya, Gto., in 2001 and 2003.
Material and methods. We obtained birthweight registries from public and private institutions and midwives. We collected 10,604 registries, and excluded 1.4% multiple births and 0.9% newborns with missing birthweight. We obtained the mean and standard deviation of the birthweight distribution and the main and residual distributions using Wilcox’ method.
Results. Among 10,357 newborns, the mean birthweight was 3,184.6 g ± 501.9, with 6.3% weighing less than 2,500 g; according to Wilcox’s method, we obtained a mean of 3,231 g ± 460 for the main distribution and a residual distribution of 1.5%.
Discussion. We observed relatively low frequencies of low birthweight and residual in Celaya, Gto. Our results suggest that the residual distribution is an indicator which can be computed in a Mexican population.


REFERENCES

  1. Wilcox AJ, Russell IT. Birthweight and perinatal mortality: II. On weight-specifity mortality. Int J Epidemiol 1983; 12: 319-25.

  2. Steffensen FH, Sorensen HT, Gillman MW et al. Low birthweight and preterm delivery as risk factors for asthma and atopic dermatitis in young adult males. Epidemiology 2000; 11: 185-88.

  3. Richards M, Ardí R, Kuth D, Wadsworth MEJ. Birthweight and cognitive function in the British 1946 birth cohort: longitudinal population based study. Br Med J 2001; 322: 199-203.

  4. Godfrey KM, Barrer DJ. Fetal nutrition and adult disease. Am J Clin Nutr 2000; 71(Supl. 5): 1344S-52S.

  5. Bobadilla FJL. Calidad de la atención médica prenatal en México. México DF: Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública, Secretaría de Salud. Perspectivas en Salud Pública N°. 3, 1988.

  6. Cerón-Mireles P, Sánchez-Carrillo CI, Harlow SD, Núñez-Urquiza RM. Condiciones de trabajo materno y bajo peso al nacer en la Ciudad de México. Salud Pública de México 1997; 39: 2-10.

  7. Frank R, Pelcastre B, Salgado ZVN, Frisbie WP, Potter JE, Bronfman-Pertrzovsky MN. Low birth weight in Mexico: New evidence from a multi-site postpartum hospital survey. Salud Pública de México 2004; 46: 23-31.

  8. González-Cossio T, Sanín LH, Hernández-Ávila M, Rivera J, Hu H. Longitud y peso al nacer: el papel de la nutrición materna. Salud Pública de México 1998; 40: 119-126.

  9. Notzon FC, Bobadilla JL, Coria I. Birthweight distributions in Mexico City and among US Southwest Mexican-Americans: The effect of altitude. American Journal of Public Health 1992; 82: 1014-1017.

  10. Weeks JR, Rumbaut RG, Ojeda N. Reproductive outcomes among Mexico-born women in San Diego and Tijuana: Testing the migration selectivity hypothesis. Journal of Immigrant Health 1999; 1: 77-90.

  11. Wilcox A. On the importance-and the unimportance-of birthweight. International Journal of Epidemiology 2001; 30: 1233-1241.

  12. Buekens P, Notzon F, Kotelchuck M, Wilcox A. Why do Mexican-Americans give birth to few low birthweight infants? American Journal of Epidemiology 2000; 152: 347-351.

  13. MacDorman MF, Atkinson JO. Infant mortality statistics from the 1997 period linked birth/infant death data set. National vital statistics reports. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 1999: 47(23).

  14. Wilcox A. The analysis of birthweight and infant mortality. An alternative hypothesis. http://eb.niehs.nih.gov/bwt (Acceso en octubre de 2004).

  15. Kirkwood B. Comparison of two means. In: Essentials of medical statistics. Oxford, Blackwell Science 1988: 41-45.

  16. Silva A, Barbieri M, Bettiol H, Goldani M, Rona R. Can we explain why Brazilian babies are becoming lighter? International Journal of Epidemiology 2004; 33: 821-828.

  17. Silva A, Bettiol H, Barbieri M, Pereira M, Brito L, Ribeiro V, Aragão V. Why are the low birthweight rates in Brazil higher in richer than in poorer municipalities? Exploring the epidemiological paradox of low birthweight. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology 2005; 19: 43-49.

  18. Buekens P, Masuy G, Delvaux T. High birthweights among infants of North African immigrants in Belgium. American Journal of Public Health 1998; 88: 808-811.

  19. Buekens P, Wilcox AJ, Kiely J et al. Birthweight, preterm births and neonatal mortality in Belgium and the United States. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology 1995; 9: 273-280.

  20. INEGI. XII Censo General de Población y Vivienda 2000. http://www.inegi.gob.mx (Acceso en febrero de 2005).

  21. Consejo Nacional de Población (CONAPO). Cuadernos de Salud Pública. Guanajuato. CONAPO, 2001. http://www.conapo.gob.mx (Acceso en febrero de 2005).

  22. INEGI. Porcentaje de peso menor a 2,500 g. http://www.inegi.gob.mx (Acceso en noviembre de 2004).




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com

    Este sitio utiliza cookies   Estoy de acuerdo