Talk:Large for gestational age

message: "greater than 90% of the normal weight for that gestational age, adjusted for sex and ethnicity."
This doesn't make sense. 100% of the normal weight, ie the normal weight, is >90% and can not be abnormally large. Should it say >190%, or something else?
:I agree with the above poster.  Unless I'm missing something, I think the line should be changed to "greater than 90% over the normal weight for that gestational age" or "greater than 190% of the normal weight for that gestational age".
::I've attempted to reword that to clarify it a bit more.  The "90th percentile" birth weight refers to the top 10% weights of average newborns which works out (not taking into consideration sex or ethnicity) to around 4250g.  I hope its clearer now.  violet/riga (t) 21:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: greater than 90% of the normal weight for that gestational age

message: The lead notes that macrosomai "occurs in up to 10% of pregnancies". If macrosomia is based on a birth weight that is in the 90th percentile or above, wouldn't this mean macrosomia occurs in 10% of pregnancies, not "up to"? --Westendgirl 05:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the 90th percentile adjusted for gestational age, sex and ethnicity.  So a newborn may be classed as being above the 90th percentile of all births but it may not figure in the 90th percentile after the adjustment.  I agree that it's quite a daft classification and that's why people tend to use the fixed weight nowadays.  violet/riga (t) 09:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this should be noted in a footnote, and the 10% moved out of the lead definition. We probably don't want a one-line description that needs footnoting. --Westendgirl 22:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Occurs in up to 10% of pregnancies"

message: Big babies do not always need to be delivered by Caesarean section.
* http://allnurses.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-54674
* http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/16/72675/1.ashx
Note that the hospital lied on court papers, over both the mother's reason and over her success with previous children.
AlbertCahalan 01:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  think I found it 

message: Birth weight/merge has been created which merges the following articles:
*Birth weight
*Small for gestational age
*Large for gestational age
Comments would be appreciated on this possible way forward. violet/riga (t) 14:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth weight/merge 

message: The article includes the unsourced statement "The condition is most common in mothers of African origin, partly due to the higher incidence of diabetes." Since Africa as far as I am aware experiences a high incidence of low birth weights, I can't help but wonder if this is another of Wikipedia's many frankly shameful examples of statements being made about the United States or some other rich country as if the rest of the world did not exist. I say shameful because, if I'm right, in this case the author of that sentence wrote "African origin" without it even occurring to them that Africa is where most people of African origin live, and they are disproportionately affected by factors that lead to low birth weight. So, do we mean African-origin mothers worldwide, or African-origin mothers in a particular country? Either way it needs a source. Credulity (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mothers of African origin 

message: I can't help but notice that the article is trying to strike a balance between using metric units (grams) and US ones (pounds & ounces). The lead of the article & the chart is in grams, while the rest is mostly US units, making it difficult to relate the chart to the text.
A decision needs to be made about which units to use. --NetRolller 3D 01:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent use of units 

message: "In the end", "In the end", "In the end"... Appalling, and unclear. But that's not so much a problem as the quasi-technical phraseology of the article. Editors should keep sight of the need of readers with little technical knowledge. Articles like this should not be written as if the target reader was a member of the medical or nursing professions. It should be written so that an anxious mother can understand it. This also applies to many of the related articles. This article struck me as linguistically far too complicated for a general reader. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slovenly writing 

message: Part 1: Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review "Guiding framework"? Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?
Overall, group 29 had substantially improved the article "Large for gestational age". Epidemiology and Treatment sections were added. A majority of the citations and reliable references were appropriately added (specifically for Diagnosis and Risk Factors section). Group 29 also corrected the plagiarized paragraphs (Diagnosis section). Wording was changed in order to create a more neutral tone. Group expanded the introduction in order to give more insight into a broader overview of the topic, for example they defined the term macrosomia and its relation to large for gestational age. A.Nono, Future UCSF PharmD. (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Group #30 Foundation II Peer Review 

message: This article seems to have a solid foundation with good overall organization. To help improve overall content and structure we plan to do the following: 
 - Fill in some missing sections such as signs and symptoms, causes (triggers, genetics, virology), mechanism, Prevention/Screening.
 - Remove some of the extra information that is presented (such as details of specific complications) that while important are actually housed under separate wiki pages.
 - Remove repetitive information and condense existing information.
 - Clarify the definitions of Large for Gestational age and Macrosomia.
 - Add additional citations to the information presented earlier on in the page that does not have them.
Logbai707 (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA and LB proposed workplan 

message: === Amrik: ===
* Check subject-verb agreement for "describe" in second sentence of intro
* I wonder if it would be helpful to briefly list some of the most common risks and health complications of LGA directly in the intro paragraph; it feels like that info should be available on the initial glance.
* Is there a simpler, more public-friendly term that you can use when defining LGA than "for their given gestational age"? Maybe something like "compared to other babies at the same number of weeks of development"?
* When talking about signs and symptoms, it feels like symptoms of the gestational parent and of the fetus should be separated. When using terms like "patient", it's not really clear who is experiencing the symptoms
* Is it possible to use simpler language when describing shoulder dystocia? The public likely will not be able to fully understand the paragraph.
* It feels like there is a disproportionate focus on shoulder dystocia in the complications section; as the main page is linked, some of the information can likely be cut out.
* I think the epidemiology on shoulder dystocia is great and thorough
* feels like the maternal complications section can be fleshed out a little more, and it currently lacks links to some of the symptoms listed
* not clear whether frozen embryo transfer is more or less likely to cause LGA
* The diagnosis section feels quite good, as it is concise, informative, and has good references
* need a reference for screening for LGA during prenatal check-ups
* Also feels like prevention and screening might be able to be combined into a single section
* Epidemiology section looks nice. I wonder if there is a world chart or some similar graphic that could be inserted here from one of the referenced papers.
Akwiki16 (talk) 08:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: 2021 CIC Peer reviews 

message: * Check subject-verb agreement for "describe" in second sentence of intro
* I wonder if it would be helpful to briefly list some of the most common risks and health complications of LGA directly in the intro paragraph; it feels like that info should be available on the initial glance.
* Is there a simpler, more public-friendly term that you can use when defining LGA than "for their given gestational age"? Maybe something like "compared to other babies at the same number of weeks of development"?
* When talking about signs and symptoms, it feels like symptoms of the gestational parent and of the fetus should be separated. When using terms like "patient", it's not really clear who is experiencing the symptoms
* Is it possible to use simpler language when describing shoulder dystocia? The public likely will not be able to fully understand the paragraph.
* It feels like there is a disproportionate focus on shoulder dystocia in the complications section; as the main page is linked, some of the information can likely be cut out.
* I think the epidemiology on shoulder dystocia is great and thorough
* feels like the maternal complications section can be fleshed out a little more, and it currently lacks links to some of the symptoms listed
* not clear whether frozen embryo transfer is more or less likely to cause LGA
* The diagnosis section feels quite good, as it is concise, informative, and has good references
* need a reference for screening for LGA during prenatal check-ups
* Also feels like prevention and screening might be able to be combined into a single section
* Epidemiology section looks nice. I wonder if there is a world chart or some similar graphic that could be inserted here from one of the referenced papers.
Akwiki16 (talk) 08:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amrik: 

message: Love the article! I learned a lot because it's clearly written and easy to follow (with lots of appropriate section breaks). My main feedback is related to using slightly less jargon, or when medical jargon is used, having a colloquial term in parentheses that links to the associated Wiki page (if appropriate).
* Prevention section: "poor glycemic control" --> high blood sugar levels, uncontrolled blood sugar levels, etc.
* Screening section: "fundal height" --> size of uterus
* Also, the introduction could clarify the difference between LGA and macrosomia because although I understand macrosomia is an "absolute" measurement, I'm not sure the general public would understand that distinction with only 1 sentence of explanation
* Great citations!
I understand not all of these alternative phrases are as accurate as the original medical term, which is why I don't necessarily think replacing them is necessary, perhaps just occasionally peppering synonyms throughout the article so people reading don't get too lost. Great job!
Patricklow9 (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sei: 

message: The other name for this(macrosomia) is less wordy, so I think it should be renamed to this. I'm not sure if there's policies for this though. (and large for gestational age gets more hits on google) DiaamondMiner999 (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think this should be renamed