Talk:Small for gestational age

message: Why was the name of this article changed from low birth weight to "small for gestational age"?  And, if you know enough about it to change that name, and to made that graph, why is it still a stub?
Google                     	hits
"low birth weight"         	617,000
"small for gestational age"	
However, the most important factor can be seen by inspecting that usage a little more closely, or even by just looking at the definition of "low birth weight" retained from before the move, and comparing that with the information presented in the new graph by User:Violetriga:  these are two different concepts.  Somewhat related, but distinct.
The definition of "low birth weight," both here and in many of the articles found in a search of the Web, is a flat, across-the-board less than 2.500 kg.  It does not depend on "gestational age."
In other words, "low birth weight" is more easily determined, and based on what is often the only accurate information available:  weight at birth.  It certainly looks as though baby might be "low birth weight" without necessarily being "small for gestational age".  Isn't that true?  Or have I misread the little I have looked into about this?   Gene Nygaard 19:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article wasn't further expanded simply because I didn't have the time - I was about to do it after the move but then had to rush off.  My plan is to have articles on SGA (this one), AGA (a new article) and LGA (currently at alternative name macrosomia).  These will then also be linked to birth weight (basically a parent article) and gestational age.  Low birth weight means less than 2500g at term (ie 40 weeks) and is the same as SGA.  SGA is a more official name than "low birth weight" and, while the common use argument may have some truth to it here, for sake of consistency I think the three articles should follow the same naming scheme.  So, hopefully it'll all come together in the next few days. violet/riga (t) 23:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, AGA may well redirect to birth weight, but we'll see how it develops.  violet/riga (t) 23:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Thinking about it further what you're saying is correct - Low birth weight is the wider category. violet/riga (t) 23:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But thinking again I have a lot more to say about SGA at that's what this article will be mainly about.  I'm looking at moving it back after I've finished working on it.  Gah.  violet/riga (t) 09:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the name change

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: I'm concerned about the potential for confusion with this article in its current form. SGA as an outcome is defined simply on the basis of birthweight and gestational age of newborns i.e. the child has to be born in order to be classified. Measures of growth retardation may assign a fetus (or a newborn) to outcomes such as IUGR and FGR. It is entirely possible that the growth of a child born SGA has been restricted (and the fetus was therefore IUGR/FGR), but the terms are differently defined and therefore not wholly interchangeable. From the point of a view of an epidemiologist working with these outcomes, it is of great importance that their definitions are understood and correctly used. I will attempt to make the article reflect these definitional differences myself over the coming days.Jimjamjak (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  SGA and IUGR/FGR 

message: It would be great to have something in this article about where in the world this phenomenon is most common. Credulity (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epidemiology 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Small for gestational age. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402214755/http://oasis.state.ga.us/oasis/help/mch.html to http://oasis.state.ga.us/oasis/help/mch.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified