Ultrasound screening for fetal growth restriction at 36<i>vs</i>32 weeks' gestation: a randomized trial (ROUTE)

Roma, Elionor; Arnau, Anna; Berdala, R.; Bergós, Carmen; Montesinos, J.; Figueras, F.

doi:10.1002/uog.14915

Cited by 96 publications

(88 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…fetal weight or other biometric parameters estimated to be over the 10th percentile or measures <10th percentile, but not noted or considered important). Our findings of low suspicion are concordant with other studies using our definition of suspicion of FGR as well as those using more detailed variables . Finally, about 15% of data were missing in our models, but models using multiple imputation provided very similar results.…”

Section: Commentsupporting

confidence: 90%

Does the Presence of Risk Factors for Fetal Growth Restriction Increase the Probability of Antenatal Detection? A French National Study

Monier

Blondel

Ego

et al. 2015

Paediatric Perinatal Epid

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Commentsupporting

confidence: 90%

Does the Presence of Risk Factors for Fetal Growth Restriction Increase the Probability of Antenatal Detection? A French National Study

Monier

Blondel

Ego

et al. 2015

Paediatric Perinatal Epid

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given these contradictory hypotheses, more research on the usefulness and accuracy of a routine third‐trimester ultrasonography in low‐risk pregnancies is warranted. In accordance with recent data suggesting that the detection of fetal growth restriction was superior at 36 weeks of pregnancy compared with 32 weeks, the present study assessed the intra‐ and inter‐observer reproducibility of biometric measurements at 35 +0 to 36 +6 weeks of pregnancy. Moreover, there is also controversy regarding the accuracy of ultrasonography fetal weight estimates in the third trimester in patients with high BMI in comparison with those with lower BMI; in the present study, the reproducibility of ultrasonography parameters was assessed among patients of different BMI groups in an attempt to validate third‐trimester ultrasonography assessment in this population.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

Impact of maternal weight on the intra‐observer and inter‐observer reproducibility of fetal ultrasonography measurements in the third trimester

Policiano

Mendes

Fonseca

et al. 2017

Intl J Gynecology & Obste

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the effect of maternal weight on the intra-and inter-observer reproducibility of third-trimester ultrasonography fetal measurements. Methods:The present prospective study, performed at a tertiary hospital, enrolled patients at between 35 +0 weeks and 36 +6 weeks of singleton pregnancies between January 1, 2015, and July 1, 2016. Fetal ultrasonography measurements were evaluated twice by a first observer and a third time by a second observer. Intra-and interobserver consistency were analyzed using the Cronbach α reliability coefficient, and measurement reproducibility was compared with patients stratified by a body mass index (BMI, calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters) of below 25 or at least 25. Results:The study included 197 patients (133 with BMI <25 and 64 with BMI ≥25).Among patients with a BMI below 25, the reliability coefficients for bi-parietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference, and femur length measurements were 0.97, 0.95, 0.98, and 0.96, respectively, for intra-observer consistency, and were 0.97, 0.93, 0.98, and 0.95, respectively, for inter-observer consistency. Among patients with a BMI of at least 25, these values were 0. 97, 0.96, 0.98, and 0.97, respectively, for intra-observed consistency, and 0.97, 0.94, 0.98, and 0.96, respectively, for inter-observer consistency. Conclusion:High intra-and inter-observer reproducibility was observed for third-trimester fetal ultrasonography measurements, including for patients who were overweight. K E Y W O R D SFetal biometry; Intra-and inter-observer reproducibility; Obesity; Third trimester ultrasound

show abstract

“…These findings have implications with regard to whether routine third-trimester sonographic surveillance in women with uncomplicated pregnancies may or may not be clinically beneficial (23,24). Our results suggest that women with uncomplicated pregnancies experience fetal growth aberration which is associated with increased severe neonatal morbidity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neonatal Morbidity of Small- and Large-for-Gestational-Age Neonates Born at Term in Uncomplicated Pregnancies

Chauhan¹,

Rice²,

Grobman³

et al. 2017

Obstetrics &Amp; Gynecology

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To compare morbidity among small-for-gestational-age (SGA; birthweight [BW] < 10th percentile for gestational age), appropriate-for-gestational-age (AGA; BW 10-90th percentile; reference group), and large-for-gestational-age (LGA; BW > 90th percentile) neonates in apparently uncomplicated pregnancies at term (≥ 37 weeks). Material and Methods This secondary analysis, derived from an observational obstetric cohort of 115,502 deliveries, included women with apparently uncomplicated pregnancies of non-anomalous singletons who had confirmatory ultrasound dating no later than the second trimester, and who delivered between 370 and 426 weeks. We used two different composite neonatal morbidity outcomes: hypoxic composite neonatal morbidity for SGA and traumatic composite neonatal morbidity for LGA neonates. Log Poisson relative risks (aRR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), adjusted for potential confounding factors (nulliparity, body mass index, insurance status, and neonatal sex) were calculated. Results Among the 63,436 women who met our inclusion criteria, SGA occurred in 7.9% (n=4,983) and LGA in 8.3% (n=5,253). Hypoxic composite neonatal morbidity was significantly higher in SGA (1.1%) vs. AGA (0.7%; aRR 1.44, 95% CI 1.07-1.93) but similar between LGA (0.6%) vs. AGA (aRR 0.84; 95% CI 0.58-1.22). Traumatic composite neonatal morbidity was significantly higher in LGA (1.9%) vs. AGA (1.0%; aRR 1.88, 95% CI 1.51-2.34)) but similar in SGA (1.3%) vs. AGA (aRR 1.28; 95% CI 0.98-1.67). Conclusions Among women with uncomplicated pregnancies, hypoxic composite neonatal morbidity is more common with SGA neonates and traumatic–composite neonatal morbidity is more common with LGA neonates.

show abstract

Ultrasound screening for fetal growth restriction at 36vs32 weeks' gestation: a randomized trial (ROUTE)

Cited by 96 publications

References 29 publications

Does the Presence of Risk Factors for Fetal Growth Restriction Increase the Probability of Antenatal Detection? A French National Study

Does the Presence of Risk Factors for Fetal Growth Restriction Increase the Probability of Antenatal Detection? A French National Study

Impact of maternal weight on the intra‐observer and inter‐observer reproducibility of fetal ultrasonography measurements in the third trimester

Neonatal Morbidity of Small- and Large-for-Gestational-Age Neonates Born at Term in Uncomplicated Pregnancies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About