Skip Navigation


IJE Advance Access originally published online on July 17, 2006
International Journal of Epidemiology 2006 35(5):1187-1195; doi:10.1093/ije/dyl125
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
35/5/1187    most recent
dyl125v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
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 ISI Web of Science
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 arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kramer, M. S
Right arrow Articles by Joseph, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kramer, M. S
Right arrow Articles by Joseph, K.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association © The Author 2006; all rights reserved.

Article

US Black vs White disparities in foetal growth: physiological or pathological?

Michael S Kramer1,2,*, Cande V Ananth3, Robert W Platt1,2 and KS Joseph4

1 Department of Pediatrics, McGill University Faculty of Medicine, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
2 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McGill University Faculty of Medicine, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
3 Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ, USA
4 The Perinatal Epidemiology Research Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Department of Pediatrics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

* Corresponding author. Institute of Human Development and Child and Youth Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, 2300 Tupper Street (Les Tourelles), Montreal, Quebec H3H 1P3, Canada. E-mail: michael.kramer{at}mcgill.ca

Background Birthweight for gestational age is lower in US Black infants than in US White infants. It is unknown, however, whether this difference is ‘normal’ (i.e. physiological) or reflects pathological foetal growth restriction.

Methods We applied an analytic approach based on foetuses at risk to compare gestational age-specific rates of live birth, ‘revealed’ small-for-gestational-age (SGA), and neonatal mortality among singleton infants ≥22 weeks of gestation and ≥500 g born in 1998–2000 to US White (n = 9 012 194), US-born Black (n = 1 554 382), and foreign-born Black (n = 200 395) mothers. Graphical methods and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to compare outcomes in the three ethnic groups.

Results Rates of live birth and neonatal mortality were highest at all gestational ages in US-born Blacks, lowest in Whites, and intermediate in foreign-born Blacks. The revealed SGA pattern cohered much more closely with the observed pattern for neonatal mortality when SGA was defined based on a single, overall standard of birthweight for gestational age than when based on ethnic group-specific standards.

Conclusion The closer coherence of revealed SGA and neonatal mortality rates based on a single standard and the intermediate pattern among foreign-born Blacks strongly suggest that Black–White differences in birthweight for gestational age are pathological, rather than physiological.


Keywords foetal growth, small-for-gestational-age, intrauterine growth restriction, racial/ethnic disparities

Accepted 5 May 2006


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


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Public Health (Oxf)Home page
Y. Kelly, L. Panico, M. Bartley, M. Marmot, J. Nazroo, and A. Sacker
Why does birthweight vary among ethnic groups in the UK? Findings from the Millennium Cohort Study
J. Public Health Med., March 1, 2009; 31(1): 131 - 137.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am J EpidemiolHome page
K. S. Joseph, J. Fahey, R. W. Platt, R. M. Liston, S. K. Lee, R. Sauve, S. Liu, A. C. Allen, and M. S. Kramer
An Outcome-based Approach for the Creation of Fetal Growth Standards: Do Singletons and Twins Need Separate Standards?
Am. J. Epidemiol., March 1, 2009; 169(5): 616 - 624.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
C. Bottomley, A. Daemen, F. Mukri, A. T. Papageorghiou, E. Kirk, A. Pexsters, B. De Moor, D. Timmerman, and T. Bourne
Assessing first trimester growth: the influence of ethnic background and maternal age
Hum. Reprod., February 1, 2009; 24(2): 284 - 290.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Ultrasound MedHome page
M. R. Chavez, C. V. Ananth, J. C. Smulian, and A. M. Vintzileos
Fetal Transcerebellar Diameter Measurement for Prediction of Gestational Age at the Extremes of Fetal Growth
J. Ultrasound Med., September 1, 2007; 26(9): 1167 - 1171.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Int J EpidemiolHome page
I A Jacobs, M T Podobny, and D Bilusich
One mechanism underlying contrasting health-economy findings
Int. J. Epidemiol., August 1, 2007; 36(4): 929 - 931.
[Full Text] [PDF]



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.