Comparison of SGA and Severe SGA rates using six size standards - Is there a difference?

BACKGROUND: Small for gestational age (SGA) neonates are known to be at an elevated risk for neonatal morbidity. Despite this, there is a growing array of proposed size standards for identifying SGA fetuses. Given the inherent differences in design, acquisition methods, and the characteristics of the populations they represent, the generalizability of these standards to diverse populations remains uncertain. INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to assess variations in rates of SGA and severe SGA using six distinct size standards: Hadlock, Fetal Medicine Foundation (FMF), World Health Organization (WHO), Intergrowth-21 (IG-21), and two locally derived population-based size standards. The objective was to examine the differences in SGA and severe SGA rates among these size standards. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted, encompassing all singleton deliveries in two tertiary referral hospital campuses with an annual birth count exceeding 10,000, from January 2019 to July 2022. SGA and severe SGA were defined as birthweights below the 10th or 3rd percentile, respectively, based on each growth standard. The study design included details on the setting, subjects (singleton deliveries), and the chosen size standards. Comparative analyses were performed to assess variations in SGA and severe SGA rates among these size standards. RESULTS: Our study analyzed 32,912 singleton deliveries. We found that the choice of growth standard significantly impacted the rates of both SGA and severe SGA infants. Notably, the WHO criteria identified 5,548 (16.9 %) fetuses as SGA, compared to only 1,716 (5.2 %) using the INTERGROWTH-21 standard (p < 0.001). Similarly, for severe SGA, the FMF charts classified 2098 (6.37 %) infants, significantly higher than the 320 (1 %) identified by Dolberg's local population-based charts (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates a significant variety of SGA and severe SGA rates using different size standards. Therefore, the decision on the size standards in use is critical given the significant influence on clinical management. SYNOPSIS: There are significant variations in SGA and Severe SGA rates depending on the chosen size standard.

Physician experience is associated with greater underestimation of patient pain.

OBJECTIVE: Procedural pain is unique in that physicians simultaneously cause and assess it. Experienced male physicians are known to underestimate their female patients' pain more than other physicians. However, it is unknown whether this also occurs in obstetrics/gynecology, where all patients are females. This study addresses the gap in literature on procedural pain assessment accuracy. METHODS: The present research compares paired pain evaluations from 20 obstetricians/gynecologists and their 92 female patients. RESULTS: Our data demonstrate that patients' reported pain levels (M = 5.53, SD = 2.7) were significantly higher than their physicians' pain estimates (M = 4.89, SD = 2.19), t = 2.64, p < 0.005. The gap between patients' and physicians' pain estimates was greatest among physicians with the greatest procedural experience (M = 1.49, SD = 2.24), f = 5.72, p < 0.005. Male physicians underestimated their patients' pain significantly more than female physicians do, t = 2.27, p < 0.05. CONCLUSION: Our results shed light on systematic underestimation of procedural pain and highlight the significance of experience and sex differences in pain evaluation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Physicians' experience influences their perception of patient pain while performing procedures. Experienced male physicians, even those who exclusively treat female patients, need to be aware of this ubiquitous bias in assessing their female patients' procedural pain.