Premium
Prospective assessment of INTERGROWTH‐21 st and World Health Organization estimated fetal weight reference curves
Author(s) -
Cheng Y. K. Y.,
Lu J.,
Leung T. Y.,
Chan Y. M.,
Sahota D. S.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
ultrasound in obstetrics and gynecology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.202
H-Index - 141
eISSN - 1469-0705
pISSN - 0960-7692
DOI - 10.1002/uog.17514
Subject(s) - medicine , gestational age , interquartile range , birth weight , obstetrics , fetus , population , gestation , prospective cohort study , singleton , pregnancy , surgery , environmental health , biology , genetics
Objectives To assess the suitability of the new INTERGROWTH‐21 st and World Health Organization (WHO) estimated fetal weight (EFW) references in a Southern Chinese population. A secondary aim was to determine the accuracy of EFW by assessing the difference between EFW and actual birth weight. Methods This was a prospective cross‐sectional cohort study. Viable singleton pregnancies at 11–13 weeks' gestation were recruited to undergo a single standardized fetal biometric scan after 20 weeks. The gestational age at which the scan was performed was allocated randomly at the time of recruitment. EFW was predicted using both the Hadlock and INTERGROWTH‐21 st weight estimation model formulae. Population‐specific EFW references were constructed. Z ‐scores were used to compare these references against the INTERGROWTH‐21 st and WHO international size references. Gestational‐age‐adjusted projection was used to assess the difference between EFW on the day of delivery and birth weight for fetuses having biometry scans ≥ 34 weeks. Results Fetuses of 970 participants had biometry scans. The median number of scans per gestational week was 48 (interquartile range, 43–53). Z ‐score comparison indicated that the WHO 10 th , 50 th and 90 th centiles of the EFW reference were consistently higher than the corresponding local centiles, whilst the INTERGROWTH‐21 st 10 th centile was lower. Fewer than 2% of fetuses scanned at or after 34 weeks would be considered as potentially large‐for‐gestational age, irrespective of which model was used to predict weight. Adopting the WHO international reference would result in approximately one in six fetuses being regarded as potentially small‐for‐gestational age, 50% more than the number determined using a population‐specific reference. Systematic errors of extrapolated EFW were similar, ranging from 5.5% to 7.4%. Conclusions Centers seeking to use new references, such as the INTERGROWTH‐21 st and/or WHO international references, as a means of determining whether a fetus is small‐ or large‐for‐gestational age, would be advised to assess the suitability of these references within their own population using standardized methodology. Copyright © 2017 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.