Author:
Vitral Gabriela Luiza Nogueira,Romanelli Roberta Maia de Castro,Reis Zilma Silveira Nogueira,Guimarães Rodney Nascimento,Dias Ivana,Mussagy Nilza,Taunde Sergio,Neves Gabriela Silveira,de São José Carolina Nogueira,Pantaleão Alexandre Negrão,Pappa Gisele Lobo,Gaspar Juliano de Souza,de Aguiar Regina Amélia Pessoa Lopes
Abstract
IntroductionA new medical device was previously developed to estimate gestational age (GA) at birth by processing a machine learning algorithm on the light scatter signal acquired on the newborn's skin. The study aims to validate GA calculated by the new device (test), comparing the result with the best available GA in newborns with low birth weight (LBW).MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, non-randomized, and single-blinded clinical trial in three urban referral centers for perinatal care in Brazil and Mozambique. LBW newborns with a GA over 24 weeks and weighing between 500 and 2,500 g were recruited in the first 24 h of life. All pregnancies had a GA calculated by obstetric ultrasound before 24 weeks or by reliable last menstrual period (LMP). The primary endpoint was the agreement between the GA calculated by the new device (test) and the best available clinical GA, with 95% confidence limits. In addition, we assessed the accuracy of using the test in the classification of preterm and SGA. Prematurity was childbirth before 37 gestational weeks. The growth standard curve was Intergrowth-21st, with the 10th percentile being the limit for classifying SGA.ResultsAmong 305 evaluated newborns, 234 (76.7%) were premature, and 139 (45.6%) were SGA. The intraclass correlation coefficient between GA by the test and reference GA was 0.829 (95% CI: 0.785–0.863). However, the new device (test) underestimated the reference GA by an average of 2.8 days (95% limits of agreement: −40.6 to 31.2 days). Its use in classifying preterm or term newborns revealed an accuracy of 78.4% (95% CI: 73.3–81.6), with high sensitivity (96.2%; 95% CI: 92.8–98.2). The accuracy of classifying SGA newborns using GA calculated by the test was 62.3% (95% CI: 56.6–67.8).DiscussionThe new device (test) was able to assess GA at birth in LBW newborns, with a high agreement with the best available GA as a reference. The GA estimated by the device (test), when used to classify newborns on the first day of life, was useful in identifying premature infants but not when applied to identify SGA infants, considering current algohrithm. Nonetheless, the new device (test) has the potential to provide important information in places where the GA is unknown or inaccurate.
Subject
Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health
Reference43 articles.
1. Global, regional, and national causes of under-5 mortality in 2000–15: an updated systematic analysis with implications for the sustainable development goals;Liu;Lancet,2016
2. Small babies, big numbers: global estimates of preterm birth;Lee;Lancet Glob Health,2019
3. 15 Million preterm births annually: what has changed this year?;Kinney;Reprod Health,2012
4. Global burden of preterm birth;Walani;Int J Gynaecol Obstet,2020
5. Global, regional, and national estimates of levels of preterm birth in 2014: a systematic review and modelling analysis;Chawanpaiboon;Lancet Glob Health,2019
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献