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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hutcheon, Jennifer A., Liauw, Jessica
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