The impact of optimal dating on the assessment of fetal growth.
CRL
Dating
EFW
Fetal
Growth
Integrowth
Journal
BMC pregnancy and childbirth
ISSN: 1471-2393
Titre abrégé: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967799
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 Feb 2021
27 Feb 2021
Historique:
received:
09
11
2020
accepted:
08
02
2021
entrez:
28
2
2021
pubmed:
1
3
2021
medline:
20
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The impact of using the Intergrowth (IG) dating formulae in comparison to the commonly used Robinson dating on the evaluation of biometrics and estimated fetal weight (EFW) has not been evaluated. Nationwide cross-sectional study of routine fetal ultrasound biometry in low-risk pregnant women whose gestational age (GA) had been previously assessed by a first trimester CRL measurement. We compared the CRL-based GA according to the Robinson formula and the IG formula. We evaluated the fetal biometric measurements as well as the EFW taken later in pregnancy depending on the dating formula used. Mean and standard deviation of the Z scores as well as the number and percentage of cases classified as <3rd, < 10th, >90th and > 97th percentile were compared. Three thousand five hundred twenty-two low-risk women with scans carried out after 18 weeks were included. There were differences of zero, one and 2 days in 642 (18.2%), 2700 (76.7%) and 180 (5%) when GA was estimated based on the Robinson or the IG formula, respectively. The biometry Z scores assessed later in pregnancy were all statistically significantly lower when the Intergrowth-based dating formula was used (p < 10 The dating formula used has a quite significant impact on the subsequent evaluation of biometry and EFW. We suggest that the combined and homogeneous use of a recent dating standard, together with prescriptive growth standards established on the same low-risk pregnancies, allows an optimal assessment of fetal growth.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The impact of using the Intergrowth (IG) dating formulae in comparison to the commonly used Robinson dating on the evaluation of biometrics and estimated fetal weight (EFW) has not been evaluated.
METHODS
METHODS
Nationwide cross-sectional study of routine fetal ultrasound biometry in low-risk pregnant women whose gestational age (GA) had been previously assessed by a first trimester CRL measurement. We compared the CRL-based GA according to the Robinson formula and the IG formula. We evaluated the fetal biometric measurements as well as the EFW taken later in pregnancy depending on the dating formula used. Mean and standard deviation of the Z scores as well as the number and percentage of cases classified as <3rd, < 10th, >90th and > 97th percentile were compared.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Three thousand five hundred twenty-two low-risk women with scans carried out after 18 weeks were included. There were differences of zero, one and 2 days in 642 (18.2%), 2700 (76.7%) and 180 (5%) when GA was estimated based on the Robinson or the IG formula, respectively. The biometry Z scores assessed later in pregnancy were all statistically significantly lower when the Intergrowth-based dating formula was used (p < 10
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The dating formula used has a quite significant impact on the subsequent evaluation of biometry and EFW. We suggest that the combined and homogeneous use of a recent dating standard, together with prescriptive growth standards established on the same low-risk pregnancies, allows an optimal assessment of fetal growth.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33639870
doi: 10.1186/s12884-021-03640-9
pii: 10.1186/s12884-021-03640-9
pmc: PMC7912534
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
167Références
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Dec;38(6):681-7
pubmed: 22411446
Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Feb;133(2):390-392
pubmed: 30681535
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jul;48(1):80-5
pubmed: 27158767
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Dec;211(6):672.e1-5
pubmed: 24912098
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Oct;213(4):494-9
pubmed: 26184778
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016 Dec;207:37-44
pubmed: 27816740
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2000 Jun;79(6):440-9
pubmed: 10857867
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Aug;56(2):298-312
pubmed: 32738107
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Apr;49(4):487-492
pubmed: 27516404
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2008 Nov;22(6):587-96
pubmed: 19000297
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015 Oct;193:10-8
pubmed: 26207980
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jun;25(6):559-65
pubmed: 15909324
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Feb;218(2S):S630-S640
pubmed: 29422205
Ultrasound Med Biol. 1996;22(8):1117-9
pubmed: 9004436
Lancet. 2015 Nov 21;386(10008):2089-2097
pubmed: 26360240
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Dec;56(6):946-948
pubmed: 32086966
BJOG. 2006 Feb;113(2):171-6
pubmed: 16411994
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013 Jul;169(1):10-6
pubmed: 23434325
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Oct;223(4):B2-B17
pubmed: 32407785
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Apr;214(4):509.e1-509.e7
pubmed: 26546850
Am J Epidemiol. 2010 Apr 1;171(7):826-36
pubmed: 20185417
PLoS One. 2017 Mar 3;12(3):e0172910
pubmed: 28257473
BJOG. 2015 Mar;122(4):518-27
pubmed: 25346493
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Dec;187(6):1660-6
pubmed: 12501080
BJOG. 2014 Apr;121(5):556-65
pubmed: 24387345
BJOG. 2013 Sep;120 Suppl 2:38-41, v
pubmed: 23678951
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2018 May;103(3):F264-F270
pubmed: 28780501
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985 Feb 1;151(3):333-7
pubmed: 3881966
BJOG. 2011 Sep;118(10):1223-8
pubmed: 21585646
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Dec;44(6):641-8
pubmed: 25044000
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1975 Sep;82(9):702-10
pubmed: 1182090
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998 Sep;105(9):933-6
pubmed: 9763041
Lancet. 2014 Sep 6;384(9946):869-79
pubmed: 25209488
Stat Med. 2006 Jan 30;25(2):247-65
pubmed: 16143968
BJOG. 2012 Nov;119(12):1425-39
pubmed: 22882780
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2007 Sep;21 Suppl 2:86-96
pubmed: 17803622
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Jan;41(1):102-13
pubmed: 23280739
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jun;53(6):715-723
pubmed: 31169958
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Mar;55(3):375-382
pubmed: 31763735
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Jun;198(6):703.e1-5; discussion 703.e5-6
pubmed: 18538160
J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2011 Dec;40(8):726-33
pubmed: 22056192
Obstet Gynecol. 2017 May;129(5):e150-e154
pubmed: 28426621