Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Dec 11;17(1):165.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0444-z.

On the use of the outcome variable "small for gestational age" when gestational age is a potential mediator: a maternal asthma perspective

Affiliations

On the use of the outcome variable "small for gestational age" when gestational age is a potential mediator: a maternal asthma perspective

Geneviève Lefebvre et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Erratum in

Abstract

Background: The variable "small for gestational age," frequently defined as birth weight below the 10th percentile in a gestational age and sex-normalized population, is nowadays generally perceived as a more adequate measure than birth weight or low birth weight (birth weight < 2500 g) to capture fetal growth. However, the use of small for gestational age rather than birth weight or low birth weight as an outcome (dependent) variable may have important impacts on the interpretation of analyses aimed at estimating the causal effect of an exposure of interest on infants. We hypothesized potential differences in both types of effects estimated (direct or total) and in ability to control for confounding bias.

Methods: We first examined the use of outcome variables birth weight and small for gestational age to get insights on modeling practices within the field of maternal asthma. Using directed acyclic graph simulations where gestational age was a potential mediator, we then compared estimated exposure effects in regression models for birth weight, low birth weight, and small for gestational age. Graphs with and without confounding were considered.

Results: Our simulations showed that the variable small for gestational age captures the direct effect of exposure on birth weight, but not the indirect effect of exposure on birth weight through gestational age. Interestingly, exposure effect estimates from small for gestational age models were found unbiased whenever exposure effect estimates from birth weight models were affected by collider bias due to conditioning on gestational age in the models.

Conclusions: The sole consideration of the outcome small for gestational age in a study may lead to suboptimal understanding and quantification of the underlying effect of an exposure on birth weight-related measures. Instead, our results suggest that both outcome variables (low) birth weight and small for gestational age should minimally be considered in studies investigating perinatal outcomes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Directed acyclic graphs for the Basic Scenarios 1–4. From top to bottom, Basic Scenario 1: Null effect of ICS on BW; Basic Scenario 2: Indirect effect of ICS on BW; Basic Scenario 3: Direct effect of ICS on BW; Basic Scenario 4: Direct and indirect effects of ICS on BW
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Directed acyclic graphs for the Confounding Scenarios 1–4. From top to bottom, Confounding Scenario 1: Indirect effect of ICS on BW with V confounder between ICS and GA; Confounding Scenario 2: Indirect effect of ICS on BW with V confounder between GA and BW; Confounding Scenario 3: Indirect effect of ICS on BW with V confounder between ICS and BW; Confounding Scenario 4: Indirect effect of ICS on BW with V common confounder between ICS, GA, and BW

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Hughes MM, Black RE, Katz J. 2500-g low birth weight cutoff: history and implications for future research and policy. Matern Child Health J. 2017;21(2):283–289. doi: 10.1007/s10995-016-2131-9. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Urquia ML, Ray JG. Seven caveats on the use of low birthweight and related indicators in health research. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012;66(11):971–975. doi: 10.1136/jech-2011-200772. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wilcox AJ. On the importance--and the unimportance--of birthweight. Int J Epidemiol. 2001;30(6):1233–1241. doi: 10.1093/ije/30.6.1233. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kramer MS, Platt RW, Wen SW, Joseph KS, Allen A, Abrahamowicz M, et al. A new and improved population-based Canadian reference for birth weight for gestational age. Pediatrics. 2001;108(2):E35. doi: 10.1542/peds.108.2.e35. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Campbell MK, Cartier S, Xie B, Kouniakis G, Huang W, Han V. Determinants of small for gestational age birth at term. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2012;26(6):525–533. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2012.01319.x. - DOI - PubMed

Substances