Cargando…

Prenatal Application of the Individualized Fetal Growth Reference

The individualized reference for defining small for gestational age (SGA) at birth has gained popularity in recent years. However, its utility on fetal assessment has not been evaluated. The authors compare an individualized with an ultrasound reference in predicting poor perinatal outcomes. Data fr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Jun, Mikolajczyk, Rafael, Grewal, Jaceteshwar, Neta, Gila, Klebanoff, Mark
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3044839/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21252054
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwq411
_version_ 1782198784378273792
author Zhang, Jun
Mikolajczyk, Rafael
Grewal, Jaceteshwar
Neta, Gila
Klebanoff, Mark
author_facet Zhang, Jun
Mikolajczyk, Rafael
Grewal, Jaceteshwar
Neta, Gila
Klebanoff, Mark
author_sort Zhang, Jun
collection PubMed
description The individualized reference for defining small for gestational age (SGA) at birth has gained popularity in recent years. However, its utility on fetal assessment has not been evaluated. The authors compare an individualized with an ultrasound reference in predicting poor perinatal outcomes. Data from a large clinical trial in predominantly white US women (1987–1991) with singleton pregnancies (n = 9,526) were used. The individualized reference classified fewer SGA fetuses than the ultrasound reference, but the risks of adverse outcomes were similar between fetuses classified by both references. The risk increased substantially only when the percentiles fell below the 5th percentile (likelihood ratio positive at birth = 2.68 (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.00, 3.58) and 3.13 (95% CI: 2.34, 4.18) for ultrasound and individualized references, respectively). SGA fetuses defined by either the individualized or ultrasound reference alone had risk ratios of adverse outcomes of 1.91 (95% CI: 0.77, 4.77) and 1.18 (95% CI: 0.37, 3.77), respectively, compared with normal fetuses (the difference between these 2 risk ratios, P = 0.71). The authors conclude that neither the ultrasound-based nor the individualized reference does well in predicting adverse perinatal outcomes. The 5th percentile may be a better cutpoint than the 10th percentile in defining SGA.
format Text
id pubmed-3044839
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-30448392011-02-28 Prenatal Application of the Individualized Fetal Growth Reference Zhang, Jun Mikolajczyk, Rafael Grewal, Jaceteshwar Neta, Gila Klebanoff, Mark Am J Epidemiol Practice of Epidemiology The individualized reference for defining small for gestational age (SGA) at birth has gained popularity in recent years. However, its utility on fetal assessment has not been evaluated. The authors compare an individualized with an ultrasound reference in predicting poor perinatal outcomes. Data from a large clinical trial in predominantly white US women (1987–1991) with singleton pregnancies (n = 9,526) were used. The individualized reference classified fewer SGA fetuses than the ultrasound reference, but the risks of adverse outcomes were similar between fetuses classified by both references. The risk increased substantially only when the percentiles fell below the 5th percentile (likelihood ratio positive at birth = 2.68 (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.00, 3.58) and 3.13 (95% CI: 2.34, 4.18) for ultrasound and individualized references, respectively). SGA fetuses defined by either the individualized or ultrasound reference alone had risk ratios of adverse outcomes of 1.91 (95% CI: 0.77, 4.77) and 1.18 (95% CI: 0.37, 3.77), respectively, compared with normal fetuses (the difference between these 2 risk ratios, P = 0.71). The authors conclude that neither the ultrasound-based nor the individualized reference does well in predicting adverse perinatal outcomes. The 5th percentile may be a better cutpoint than the 10th percentile in defining SGA. Oxford University Press 2011-03-01 2011-01-20 /pmc/articles/PMC3044839/ /pubmed/21252054 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwq411 Text en American Journal of Epidemiology Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health 2011. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Practice of Epidemiology
Zhang, Jun
Mikolajczyk, Rafael
Grewal, Jaceteshwar
Neta, Gila
Klebanoff, Mark
Prenatal Application of the Individualized Fetal Growth Reference
title Prenatal Application of the Individualized Fetal Growth Reference
title_full Prenatal Application of the Individualized Fetal Growth Reference
title_fullStr Prenatal Application of the Individualized Fetal Growth Reference
title_full_unstemmed Prenatal Application of the Individualized Fetal Growth Reference
title_short Prenatal Application of the Individualized Fetal Growth Reference
title_sort prenatal application of the individualized fetal growth reference
topic Practice of Epidemiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3044839/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21252054
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwq411
work_keys_str_mv AT zhangjun prenatalapplicationoftheindividualizedfetalgrowthreference
AT mikolajczykrafael prenatalapplicationoftheindividualizedfetalgrowthreference
AT grewaljaceteshwar prenatalapplicationoftheindividualizedfetalgrowthreference
AT netagila prenatalapplicationoftheindividualizedfetalgrowthreference
AT klebanoffmark prenatalapplicationoftheindividualizedfetalgrowthreference