Correction: The World Health Organization Fetal Growth Charts: A Multinational Longitudinal Study of Ultrasound Biometric Measurements and Estimated Fetal Weight

Kiserud, Torvid; Piaggio, Gilda; Carroli, Guillermo; Widmer, Mariana; Carvalho, José Ferreira de; Jensen, Line; Giordano, Daniel; Cecatti, José Guilherme; Aleem, Hany Abdel; Talegawkar, Sameera A.; Benachi, Alexandra; Diemert, Anke; Kitoto, Antoinette Tshefu; Thinkhamrop, Jadsada; Lumbiganon, Pisake; Tabor, Ann; Kriplani, Alka; González, Rogelio; Hecher, Kurt; Hanson, Mark A.; Gülmezoglu, A Metin; Platt, Lawrence D.

doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002284

Cited by 57 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…9–11, 13, 14 The percentile cut-points for SGA and LGA varied among the studies. For example, starting at 28 weeks of gestation and onward, the 3rd percentile for INTERGROWTH was below all individual races/ethnicities in the NICHD study and the pooled sample in WHO Fetal study.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…13, 14 NICHD and WHO Fetal calculated EFW from HC, AC and FL using the Hadlock 1985 formula, 26 while INTERGROWTH created a new formula 12 based on only HC and AC.…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…13, 14 b Results were reported for the exact day (e.g., 16.0 weeks) for the NICHD study, while INTERGROWTH and WHO Fetal results were reported for completed weeks (e.g., 16 weeks = 16w0d to 16w6d). c Note that NICHD and WHO Fetal calculated EFW from HC, AC and FL using the Hadlock 1985 formula, 26 while INTERGROWTH created a new formula 12 based on only HC and AC. …”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…13, 14 However, each has slightly different research aims that impact interpretation of findings. We compare and contrast these three studies to aid in the application and clinical interpretation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Fetal growth standards: the NICHD fetal growth study approach in context with INTERGROWTH-21st and the World Health Organization Multicentre Growth Reference Study

Grantz

Hediger

Liu

et al. 2018

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three recently completed longitudinal cohort studies have developed intrauterine fetal growth charts, one in the United States and two international. This expert review compares and contrasts the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Fetal Growth Studies, INTERGROWTH-21st and World Health Organization Multicentre Growth Reference Study conclusions in light of differences in aims, sampling frames, and analytical approaches. An area of controversy is whether a single growth reference is representative of growth, regardless of ethnic or country origin. The INTERGROWTH and World Health Organization Fetal studies used a similar approach as the World Health Organization Multicentre Growth Reference Study for infants and children, the aim of which was to create a single international reference for the best physiological growth for children aged 0-5 years. INTERGROWTH made the same assumption (ie, that there would be no differences internationally among countries or racial/ethnic groups in fetal growth when conditions were optimal). INTERGROWTH found differences in crown-rump length and head circumference among countries but interpreted the differences as not meaningful and presented a pooled standard. The World Health Organization Multicentre Growth Reference Study was designed to create a pooled reference, although they evaluated for and presented country differences, along with discussion of the implications. The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study was designed to assess whether racial/ethnic-specific fetal growth standards were needed, in recognition of the fact that fetal size is commonly estimated from dimensions (head circumference, abdominal circumference, and femur length) in which there are known differences in children and adults of differing racial/ethnic groups. A pooled standard would be derived if no racial/ethnic differences were found. Highly statistically significant racial/ethnic differences in fetal growth were found resulting in the publication of racial/ethnic-specific derived standards. Despite all 3 studies including low-risk status women, the percentiles for fetal dimensions and estimated fetal weight varied among the studies. Specifically, at 39 weeks, the 50th percentile for estimated fetal weight was 3502 g for whites, 3330 g for Hispanics, 3263 g for Asians, and 3256 for blacks in the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study, compared with 3186 g for INTERGROWTH and 3403 g for World Health Organization Multicentre Growth Reference Study. When applying these standards to a clinical population, it is important to be aware that different percentages of small- and large-for-gestational-age fetuses will be identified. Also, it may be necessary to use more restrictive cut points, such as the 2.5th or 97.5th, for small-for-gestational-age or large-for-gestational-age fetuses, respectively. Ideally, a comparison of diagnostic accuracy, or misclassification rates, of...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…13, 14 NICHD and WHO Fetal calculated EFW from HC, AC and FL using the Hadlock 1985 formula, 26 while INTERGROWTH created a new formula 12 based on only HC and AC.…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Fetal growth standards: the NICHD fetal growth study approach in context with INTERGROWTH-21st and the World Health Organization Multicentre Growth Reference Study

Grantz

Hediger

Liu

et al. 2018

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[1] Ultrasonography has been the method of choice for monitoring foetal development and condition. [2][3][4] Its use goes beyond monitoring the progress of the foetus, as sex can also be determined and abnormalities diagnosed. [5,6] Studies have shown that ovarian and cervical dimensions can be used as adjuncts in accessing maternal factors which could play a role in foetal development.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Maternal Age and Birth Order on Foetal Biometric Parameters

Favour¹,

E.²,

Oyakhire³

et al. 2017

aanat

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Foetal biometric parameters have been used to determine the growth pattern and viability of the foetus; however, some studies have suggested that the foetal development are also influenced by the age of the mother and parity (birth order). This research was therefore carried out to establish the effect of maternal age and birth order on foetal biometric parameters of Nigerians. Methods: The study was a prospective crosssectional study, involving a total of 167 (76 male and 91 female) foetal records obtained from a semi-automated ultra-sonographic image. Four (4) biometric parameters (femur length [FL], abdominal circumference [AC], biparietal diameter [BPD], and head circumference [HC], were obtained from the sonographic machine while maternal (age), and birth order were determined after clinical examination and interview by the physician. XLSTAT (Addinsoft, version 2015.4.0.1) ANOVA and correlation were used to evaluate the strength of the relationship between maternal age, birth order and the measured foetal biometric parameters. P<0.05 was taken to be statistically significant at 95% confidence level. Results: The mean±S.D values of the biometric parameters for both sexes were observed as follows; male (FL = 51.40±18.41mm, AC = 245.56±72.02mm, BPD = 67.74±21.07mm, and HC = 230.07±64.34mm) and female (FL = 50.6±18.31mm, AC = 245.51±67.64mm, BPD = 68.47±20.34mm, HC = 235.07±64.27mm and NBL = 8.04±2.29mm). The mean values of the foetuses of the different birth orders were not significantly different (P>0.05). There was also no significant relationship between parity and maternal age on the foetal parameters (P>0.05). Conclusion: It could be concluded that maternal age and parity are not significant influencers of the foetal growth pattern and development.

show abstract

AIUM–ACR–ACOG–SMFM–SRU Practice Parameter for the Performance of Standard Diagnostic Obstetric Ultrasound Examinations

2018

J of Ultrasound Medicine

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Correction: The World Health Organization Fetal Growth Charts: A Multinational Longitudinal Study of Ultrasound Biometric Measurements and Estimated Fetal Weight

Cited by 57 publications

References 1 publication

Fetal growth standards: the NICHD fetal growth study approach in context with INTERGROWTH-21st and the World Health Organization Multicentre Growth Reference Study

Fetal growth standards: the NICHD fetal growth study approach in context with INTERGROWTH-21st and the World Health Organization Multicentre Growth Reference Study

Effect of Maternal Age and Birth Order on Foetal Biometric Parameters

AIUM–ACR–ACOG–SMFM–SRU Practice Parameter for the Performance of Standard Diagnostic Obstetric Ultrasound Examinations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About