These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Prospective assessment of INTERGROWTH-21st and World Health Organization estimated fetal weight reference curves.
    Author: Cheng YKY, Lu J, Leung TY, Chan YM, Sahota DS.
    Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2018 Jun; 51(6):792-798. PubMed ID: 28452092.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: To assess the suitability of the new INTERGROWTH-21st and World Health Organization (WHO) estimated fetal weight (EFW) references in a Southern Chinese population. A secondary aim was to determine the accuracy of EFW by assessing the difference between EFW and actual birth weight. METHODS: This was a prospective cross-sectional cohort study. Viable singleton pregnancies at 11-13 weeks' gestation were recruited to undergo a single standardized fetal biometric scan after 20 weeks. The gestational age at which the scan was performed was allocated randomly at the time of recruitment. EFW was predicted using both the Hadlock and INTERGROWTH-21st weight estimation model formulae. Population-specific EFW references were constructed. Z-scores were used to compare these references against the INTERGROWTH-21st and WHO international size references. Gestational-age-adjusted projection was used to assess the difference between EFW on the day of delivery and birth weight for fetuses having biometry scans ≥ 34 weeks. RESULTS: Fetuses of 970 participants had biometry scans. The median number of scans per gestational week was 48 (interquartile range, 43-53). Z-score comparison indicated that the WHO 10th , 50th and 90th centiles of the EFW reference were consistently higher than the corresponding local centiles, whilst the INTERGROWTH-21st 10th centile was lower. Fewer than 2% of fetuses scanned at or after 34 weeks would be considered as potentially large-for-gestational age, irrespective of which model was used to predict weight. Adopting the WHO international reference would result in approximately one in six fetuses being regarded as potentially small-for-gestational age, 50% more than the number determined using a population-specific reference. Systematic errors of extrapolated EFW were similar, ranging from 5.5% to 7.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Centers seeking to use new references, such as the INTERGROWTH-21st and/or WHO international references, as a means of determining whether a fetus is small- or large-for-gestational age, would be advised to assess the suitability of these references within their own population using standardized methodology. Copyright © 2017 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]