Should Fetal Growth Charts Be References or Standards?
BACKGROUND: Fetal growth standards (prescriptive charts derived from low-risk pregnancies) are theoretically better tools to monitor fetal growth than conventional references. We examined how modifying chart inclusion criteria influenced the resulting curves. METHODS: We summarized estimated fetal w...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7707154/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33074926 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000001275 |
_version_ | 1783617287526285312 |
---|---|
author | Hutcheon, Jennifer A. Liauw, Jessica |
author_facet | Hutcheon, Jennifer A. Liauw, Jessica |
author_sort | Hutcheon, Jennifer A. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Fetal growth standards (prescriptive charts derived from low-risk pregnancies) are theoretically better tools to monitor fetal growth than conventional references. We examined how modifying chart inclusion criteria influenced the resulting curves. METHODS: We summarized estimated fetal weight (EFW) distributions from a hospital’s routine 32-week ultrasound in all nonanomalous singleton fetuses (reference) and in those without maternal–fetal conditions affecting fetal growth (standard). We calculated EFWs for the 3rd, 5th, 10th, and 50th percentiles, and the proportion of fetuses each chart classified as small for gestational age. RESULTS: Of 2309 fetuses in our reference, 690 (30%) met the standard’s inclusion criteria. There were no meaningful differences between the EFW distributions of the reference and standard curves (50th percentile: 1989 g reference vs. 1968 g standard; 10th percentile: 1711 g reference vs. 1710 g standard), or the proportion of small for gestational age fetuses (both 9.9%). CONCLUSIONS: In our study, there was little practical difference between a fetal growth reference and standard for detecting small infants. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7707154 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-77071542020-12-08 Should Fetal Growth Charts Be References or Standards? Hutcheon, Jennifer A. Liauw, Jessica Epidemiology Perinatal Epidemiology BACKGROUND: Fetal growth standards (prescriptive charts derived from low-risk pregnancies) are theoretically better tools to monitor fetal growth than conventional references. We examined how modifying chart inclusion criteria influenced the resulting curves. METHODS: We summarized estimated fetal weight (EFW) distributions from a hospital’s routine 32-week ultrasound in all nonanomalous singleton fetuses (reference) and in those without maternal–fetal conditions affecting fetal growth (standard). We calculated EFWs for the 3rd, 5th, 10th, and 50th percentiles, and the proportion of fetuses each chart classified as small for gestational age. RESULTS: Of 2309 fetuses in our reference, 690 (30%) met the standard’s inclusion criteria. There were no meaningful differences between the EFW distributions of the reference and standard curves (50th percentile: 1989 g reference vs. 1968 g standard; 10th percentile: 1711 g reference vs. 1710 g standard), or the proportion of small for gestational age fetuses (both 9.9%). CONCLUSIONS: In our study, there was little practical difference between a fetal growth reference and standard for detecting small infants. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2020-10-12 2021-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7707154/ /pubmed/33074926 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000001275 Text en Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. |
spellingShingle | Perinatal Epidemiology Hutcheon, Jennifer A. Liauw, Jessica Should Fetal Growth Charts Be References or Standards? |
title | Should Fetal Growth Charts Be References or Standards? |
title_full | Should Fetal Growth Charts Be References or Standards? |
title_fullStr | Should Fetal Growth Charts Be References or Standards? |
title_full_unstemmed | Should Fetal Growth Charts Be References or Standards? |
title_short | Should Fetal Growth Charts Be References or Standards? |
title_sort | should fetal growth charts be references or standards? |
topic | Perinatal Epidemiology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7707154/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33074926 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000001275 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hutcheonjennifera shouldfetalgrowthchartsbereferencesorstandards AT liauwjessica shouldfetalgrowthchartsbereferencesorstandards |