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: Comparing population-based fetal growth standards in a US cohort.
    Author: Gleason JL, Reddy UM, Chen Z, Grobman WA, Wapner RJ, Steller JG, Simhan H, Scifres CM, Blue N, Parry S, Grantz KL.
    Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2024 Sep; 231(3):338.e1-338.e18. PubMed ID: 38151220.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: No fetal growth standard is currently endorsed for universal use in the United States. Newer standards improve upon the methodologic limitations of older studies; however, before adopting into practice, it is important to know how recent standards perform at identifying fetal undergrowth or overgrowth and at predicting subsequent neonatal morbidity or mortality in US populations. OBJECTIVE: To compare classification of estimated fetal weight that is <5th or 10th percentile or >90th percentile by 6 population-based fetal growth standards and the ability of these standards to predict a composite of neonatal morbidity and mortality. STUDY DESIGN: We used data from the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-to-be cohort, which recruited nulliparous women in the first trimester at 8 US clinical centers (2010-2014). Estimated fetal weight was obtained from ultrasounds at 16 to 21 and 22 to 29 weeks of gestation (N=9534 women). We calculated rates of fetal growth restriction (estimated fetal weight <5th and 10th percentiles; fetal growth restriction<5 and fetal growth restriction<10) and estimated fetal weight >90th percentile (estimated fetal weight>90) from 3 large prospective fetal growth cohorts with similar rigorous methodologies: INTERGROWTH-21, World Health Organization-sex-specific and combined, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development race-ethnic-specific and unified, and the historic Hadlock reference. To determine whether differential classification of fetal growth restriction or estimated fetal weight >90 among standards was clinically meaningful, we then compared area under the curve and sensitivity of each standard to predict small for gestational age or large for gestational age at birth, composite perinatal morbidity and mortality alone, and small for gestational age or large for gestational age with composite perinatal morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: The standards classified different proportions of fetal growth restriction and estimated fetal weight>90 for ultrasounds at 16 to 21 (visit 2) and 22 to 29 (visit 3) weeks of gestation. At visit 2, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development race-ethnic-specific, World Health Organization sex-specific and World Health Organization-combined identified similar rates of fetal growth restriction<10 (8.4%-8.5%) with the other 2 having lower rates, whereas Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development race-ethnic-specific identified the highest rate of fetal growth restriction<5 (5.0%) compared with the other references. At visit 3, World Health Organization sex-specific classified 9.2% of fetuses as fetal growth restriction<10, whereas the other 5 classified a lower proportion as follows: World Health Organization-combined (8.4%), Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development race-ethnic-specific (7.7%), INTERGROWTH (6.2%), Hadlock (6.1%), and Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development unified (5.1%). INTERGROWTH classified the highest (21.3%) as estimated fetal weight>90 whereas Hadlock classified the lowest (8.3%). When predicting composite perinatal morbidity and mortality in the setting of early-onset fetal growth restriction, World Health Organization had the highest area under the curve of 0.53 (95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.53) for fetal growth restriction<10 at 22 to 29 weeks of gestation, but the areas under the curve were similar among standards (0.52). Sensitivity was generally low across standards (22.7%-29.1%). When predicting small for gestational age birthweight with composite neonatal morbidity or mortality, for fetal growth restriction<10 at 22 to 29 weeks of gestation, World Health Organization sex-specific had the highest area under the curve (0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.67) and INTERGROWTH had the lowest (area under the curve=0.58; 95% confidence interval 0.55-0.62), though all standards had low sensitivity (7.0%-9.6%). CONCLUSION: Despite classifying different proportions of fetuses as fetal growth restriction or estimated fetal weight>90, all standards performed similarly in predicting perinatal morbidity and mortality. Classification of different percentages of fetuses as fetal growth restriction or estimated fetal weight>90 among references may have clinical implications in the management of pregnancies, such as increased antenatal monitoring for fetal growth restriction or cesarean delivery for suspected large for gestational age. Our findings highlight the importance of knowing how standards perform in local populations, but more research is needed to determine if any standard performs better at identifying the risk of morbidity or mortality.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]