Individualized growth assessment: conceptual framework and practical implementation for the evaluation of fetal growth and neonatal growth outcome.

Fetal growth abnormalities can pose significant consequences on perinatal morbidity and mortality of nonanomalous fetuses. The most widely accepted definition of fetal growth restriction is an estimated fetal weight less than the 10th percentile for gestational age according to population-based criteria. However, these criteria do not account for the growth potential of an individual fetus, nor do they effectively separate constitutionally small fetuses from ones that are malnourished. Furthermore, conventional approaches typically evaluate estimated fetal weight at a single time point, rather than using serial scans, to evaluate growth. This article provides a conceptual framework for the individualized growth assessment of a fetus/neonate based on measuring second-trimester growth velocity of fetal size parameters to estimate growth potential. These estimates specify size models that generate individualized third-trimester size trajectories and predict birth characteristics. Comparisons of measured and predicted values are used to separate normally growing fetuses from those with growth abnormalities. This can be accomplished with individual anatomical parameters or sets of parameters. A practical and freely available software (Individualized Growth Assessment Program) has been developed to allow implementation of this approach for clinical and research purposes.

Perceptions and preferences on denture marking in an Indian sample.

AIM: Denture marking is useful in institutional settings and post-mortem identification. Numerous markers have been developed, and their advantages and limitations assessed previously; however, patient perception to denture marking is paramount. We evaluated this in an Indian sample and also gauged their preference for different markers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One-hundred and one edentulous patients seeking prosthodontic treatment in our institution were shown four denture markers (stainless steel matrix band, paper strip with name inscribed on it, patient photograph and optically readable laminated bar code) and asked whether they wanted similar markers in their dentures; patients were also asked to rank the markers based on preference and indicate their satisfaction with it. RESULTS: Approximately two-thirds of patients (65/101) were uninterested in getting their dentures marked; among the 36 who agreed, 10 preferred the stainless steel band followed by photographs (9), paper strip (6) and bar code (2); nine gave multiple responses and were excluded from analyses. Sixteen patients expressed dissatisfaction with the photographic marker and bar code, while this number reduced for the stainless steel band (13) and paper strip (10). CONCLUSIONS: The results are in contrast to European studies wherein the majority of patients agreed to denture marking, indicating patient background (e.g. education level) may affect perception to denture marking; amongst those who agreed to marking, most preferred, or were satisfied with, the stainless steel and paper strip markers over photographic marker and a complex method such as bar-coding, implying that simple methods harbouring basic patient information may suffice in the Indian context.