Customized Fetal Growth Charts for Parents' Characteristics, Race, and Parity by Quantile Regression Analysis

Ghi, T.; Cariello, L.; Rizzo, Ludovica; Ferrazzi, Enrico; Periti, Enrico; Prefumo, Federico; Stampalija, Tamara; Viora, E.; Verrotti, Carla; Rizzo, Giuseppe

doi:10.7863/ultra.15.03003

Cited by 25 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…24 Similar associations between maternal-child BMI and paternal-child BMI at 3 years have been reported; 25 and as others, 26 they questioned the contribution by the intrauterine environment and suggested that prevention of childhood adiposity will benefit more from postnatal than prenatal intervention. 25 The role of ethnicity is not clear, as a small effect on fetal biometry is reported in some studies, 20,21 the large Intergrowth-21st study found no effect of ethnicity after adjustment for socioeconomic confounders, 27 which supports the Barker hypothesis. 1,2 There is some disagreement about the mechanism behind maternal constraint and possible explanations that have been suggested are: (1) maternal regulation of fetal nutrition, (2) maternal hormone regulation, or (3) cytoplasmic inheritance.…”

Section: 339mentioning

confidence: 86%

“…[20][21][22][23][24][25] In a retrospective multicenter study, paternal and maternal height and maternal weight were associated with fetal HC, AC and FL. 20,21 In the Intergrowth-21st study, fathers of infants born large-for-gestational-age were taller and heavier but they had similar BMI. 22 Paternal height predicted large-for-gestational-age in boys and girls, but paternal BMI was not associated with greater odds ratio…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effect of maternal and paternal height and weight on antenatal, perinatal and postnatal morphology in sex‐stratified analyses

Skåren

Davies

Bjørnerem

2019

Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: 339mentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of maternal and paternal height and weight on antenatal, perinatal and postnatal morphology in sex‐stratified analyses

Skåren

Davies

Bjørnerem

2019

Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the birth weight distribution of our study population of 3,440 newborns was well-matched to the distribution of birth weight of newborns included in the INTERGROWTH-21 st project, this was not the case for two of the four ultrasound parameters (biparietal diameter and femur length). The most likely reasons for discrepancies are differences in the measurement techniques between the two studies (for BPD) and racial differences for femur length [15,32]. Therefore, in this study, we have used INTERGROWTH-21 st standards to classify neonates as SGA and LGA but relied on locally derived reference ranges for fetal biometry.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single and Serial Fetal Biometry to Detect Preterm and Term Small- and Large-for-Gestational-Age Neonates: A Longitudinal Cohort Study

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo assess the value of single and serial fetal biometry for the prediction of small- (SGA) and large-for-gestational-age (LGA) neonates delivered preterm or at term.MethodsA cohort study of 3,971 women with singleton pregnancies was conducted from the first trimester until delivery with 3,440 pregnancies (17,334 scans) meeting the following inclusion criteria: 1) delivery of a live neonate after 33 gestational weeks and 2) two or more ultrasound examinations with fetal biometry parameters obtained at ≤36 weeks. Primary outcomes were SGA (<5th centile) and LGA (>95th centile) at birth based on INTERGROWTH-21st gender-specific standards. Fetus-specific estimated fetal weight (EFW) trajectories were calculated by linear mixed-effects models using data up to a fixed gestational age (GA) cutoff (28, 32, or 36 weeks) for fetuses having two or more measurements before the GA cutoff and not already delivered. A screen test positive for single biometry was based on Z-scores of EFW at the last scan before each GA cut-off so that the false positive rate (FPR) was 10%. Similarly, a screen test positive for the longitudinal analysis was based on the projected (extrapolated) EFW at 40 weeks from all available measurements before each cutoff for each fetus.ResultsFetal abdominal and head circumference measurements, as well as birth weights in the Detroit population, matched well to the INTERGROWTH-21st standards, yet this was not the case for biparietal diameter (BPD) and femur length (FL) (up to 9% and 10% discrepancy for mean and confidence intervals, respectively), mainly due to differences in the measurement technique. Single biometry based on EFW at the last scan at ≤32 weeks (GA IQR: 27.4–30.9 weeks) had a sensitivity of 50% and 53% (FPR = 10%) to detect preterm and term SGA and LGA neonates, respectively (AUC of 82% both). For the detection of LGA using data up to 32- and 36-week cutoffs, single biometry analysis had higher sensitivity than longitudinal analysis (52% vs 46% and 62% vs 52%, respectively; both p<0.05). Restricting the analysis to subjects with the last observation taken within two weeks from the cutoff, the sensitivity for detection of LGA, but not SGA, increased to 65% and 72% for single biometry at the 32- and 36-week cutoffs, respectively. SGA screening performance was higher for preterm (<37 weeks) than for term cases (73% vs 46% sensitivity; p<0.05) for single biometry at ≤32 weeks.ConclusionsWhen growth abnormalities are defined based on birth weight, growth velocity (captured in the longitudinal analysis) does not provide additional information when compared to the last measurement for predicting SGA and LGA neonates, with both approaches detecting one-half of the neonates (FPR = 10%) from data collected at ≤32 weeks. Unlike for SGA, LGA detection can be improved if ultrasound scans are scheduled as close as possible to the gestational-age cutoff when a decision regarding the clinical management of the patient needs to be made. Screening performance for SGA is higher for neonates that will...

show abstract

“…In contrast to references, fetal growth standards are developed under optimal conditions, excluding pathology, and are intended for general use. Customized fetal biometry standards accounting for individual maternal characteristics have been created, [97][98][99] but may have limited applicability in low-resource settings. Recent longitudinal studies in healthy pregnancies have been undertaken by the NICHD in the United States, 74 WHO, 75 and INTERGROWTH-21st, 100 with the aim of developing population fetal growth standards for international use.…”

Section: Research Prioritiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence-based national guidelines for the management of suspected fetal growth restriction: comparison, consensus, and controversy

McCowan

Figueras

Anderson

2018

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

333

312

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Small for gestational age is usually defined as an infant with a birthweight <10th centile for a population or customized standard. Fetal growth restriction refers to a fetus that has failed to reach its biological growth potential because of placental dysfunction. Small-for-gestational-age babies make up 28-45% of nonanomalous stillbirths, and have a higher chance of neurodevelopmental delay, childhood and adult obesity, and metabolic disease. The majority of small-for-gestational-age babies are not recognized before birth. Improved identification, accompanied by surveillance and timely delivery, is associated with reduction in small-for-gestational-age stillbirths. Internationally and regionally, detection of small for gestational age and management of fetal growth problems vary considerably. The aim of this review is to: summarize areas of consensus and controversy between recently published national guidelines on small for gestational age or fetal growth restriction; highlight any recent evidence that should be incorporated into existing guidelines; and identify future research priorities in this field. A search of MEDLINE, Google, and the International Guideline Library identified 6 national guidelines on management of pregnancies complicated by fetal growth restriction/small for gestational age published from 2010 onwards. There is general consensus between guidelines (at least 4 of 6 guidelines in agreement) in early pregnancy risk selection, and use of low-dose aspirin for women with major risk factors for placental insufficiency. All highlight the importance of smoking cessation to prevent small for gestational age. While there is consensus in recommending fundal height measurement in the third trimester, 3 specify the use of a customized growth chart, while 2 recommend McDonald rule. Routine third-trimester scanning is not recommended for small-for-gestational-age screening, while women with major risk factors should have serial scanning in the third trimester. Umbilical artery Doppler studies in suspected small-for-gestational-age pregnancies are universally advised, however there is inconsistency in the recommended frequency for growth scans after diagnosis of small for gestational age/fetal growth restriction (2-4 weekly). In late-onset fetal growth restriction (≥32 weeks) general consensus is to use cerebral Doppler studies to influence surveillance and/or delivery timing. Fetal surveillance methods (most recommend cardiotocography) and recommended timing of delivery vary. There is universal agreement on the use of corticosteroids before birth at <34 weeks, and general consensus on the use of magnesium sulfate for neuroprotection in early-onset fetal growth restriction (<32 weeks). Most guidelines advise using cardiotocography surveillance to plan delivery in fetal growth restriction <32 weeks. The recommended gestation at delivery for fetal growth restriction with absent and reversed end-diastolic velocity varies from 32 to ≥34 weeks and 30 to ≥34 weeks, respectively. Overall, where there is high-q...

show abstract

Customized Fetal Growth Charts for Parents' Characteristics, Race, and Parity by Quantile Regression Analysis

Cited by 25 publications

References 36 publications

The effect of maternal and paternal height and weight on antenatal, perinatal and postnatal morphology in sex‐stratified analyses

The effect of maternal and paternal height and weight on antenatal, perinatal and postnatal morphology in sex‐stratified analyses

Single and Serial Fetal Biometry to Detect Preterm and Term Small- and Large-for-Gestational-Age Neonates: A Longitudinal Cohort Study

Evidence-based national guidelines for the management of suspected fetal growth restriction: comparison, consensus, and controversy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About