Testing the assumptions of customized intrauterine growth charts using national birth studies.
customization
fetal growth
fetal growth restriction
growth charts
small for gestational age
Journal
Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica
ISSN: 1600-0412
Titre abrégé: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0370343
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2022
Apr 2022
Historique:
revised:
06
12
2021
received:
13
09
2021
accepted:
22
01
2022
pubmed:
1
3
2022
medline:
12
4
2022
entrez:
28
2
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Customized intrauterine growth charts are widely used for growth monitoring and research. They are based on three assumptions: (1) estimated fetal weight (EFW) has a normal distribution with a constant coefficient of variation at all gestational ages; (2) Hadlock's growth curve accurately describes the relation between EFW and gestational ages; (3) associations between EFW and the fetal and maternal characteristics included in the customization model (fetal sex, pre-pregnancy weight, height, parity) are proportional throughout pregnancy. The aim of this study was to test whether these underlying assumptions are verified. Data came from (1) the French Longitudinal Study of Children (ELFE) cohort, which recruited births after 32 weeks' gestation in 349 maternity hospitals in France in 2011, and (2) the National Perinatal Survey, which included births from all French maternity hospitals in 2016. The study population included, respectively, 6 920 and 8 969 singleton non-malformed term live births with data on customization characteristics and EFW. We computed the coefficient of variation by gestational age and then modeled the association of gestational age, maternal and fetal characteristics with EFW at the second and third trimester ultrasound and with birthweight using linear regression. To assess the proportionality of the impact of maternal and fetal characteristics, we computed the percent change in weight associated with these characteristics at these three time points. The coefficient of variation was close to 12% at each gestational age, but EFW was not normally distributed, leading to small but systematic underestimation of fetuses under the 10th percentile. Weights representing the 50th and 10th percentiles based on Hadlock's growth trajectory were lower than observed or predicted weights. Most characteristics more strongly impacted weight at birth than during pregnancy. In the French Longitudinal study of Children (ELFE) cohort, boys were 1.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3-2.4) heavier than girls in the third trimester, whereas this percentage was 4.6% (95% CI 4.0-5.2) at birth. In the National Perinatal Survey, these percentages were 2.3% (95% CI 1.8-2.8) and 4.3% (95% CI 3.8-4.8). These results from two independent sources revealed discrepancies between routine clinical EFW data used for growth monitoring and the customized growth model's assumptions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35224718
doi: 10.1111/aogs.14335
pmc: PMC9564604
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
405-416Subventions
Organisme : EHESP
Organisme : Santé Publique France
Organisme : French Ministry of Health (Direction de la Recherche, des Études, de l'Évaluation et des Statistiques, Direction Générale de la Santé and Direction Générale de l'Organisation des Soins)
Organisme : National Family Allowance Fund
Organisme : Ministère de la Culture
Organisme : French Agency for Public Health
Organisme : Ministry of Health
Organisme : Ministry of Environment
Organisme : Ministry of Higher Education and Research
Organisme : French National Institute for Research in Public Health
ID : IRESP-TGIR-2009-01
Organisme : Agence Nationale de la Recherche
ID : ANR-19-COHO-0001
Organisme : Agence Nationale de la Recherche
ID : ANR-11-EQPX-0038
Organisme : >Ministry of Environment
Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG).
Références
BMJ. 2010 Dec 21;341:c7087
pubmed: 21177352
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1993 Nov 1;3(6):395-402
pubmed: 12797240
BJOG. 2003 Apr;110(4):411-5
pubmed: 12699804
Lancet. 2011 Apr 16;377(9774):1331-40
pubmed: 21496916
J Perinat Med. 2019 Apr 24;47(3):270-275
pubmed: 30653469
Fetal Diagn Ther. 2020;47(2):104-114
pubmed: 31212273
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012 Aug;52(4):348-55
pubmed: 22541027
J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2017 Dec;46(10):701-713
pubmed: 29031048
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018 Nov;97(11):1381-1387
pubmed: 29878301
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Jan;33(1):44-50
pubmed: 19072744
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May;55(5):613-620
pubmed: 31364201
BJOG. 2009 Jun;116(7):953-63
pubmed: 19522798
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2022 Apr;101(4):405-416
pubmed: 35224718
Stat Med. 2011 Feb 20;30(4):377-99
pubmed: 21225900
J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2003 Feb;32(1 Suppl):1S30-2
pubmed: 12592160
Radiology. 1991 Oct;181(1):129-33
pubmed: 1887021
Fetal Diagn Ther. 2019;46(5):341-352
pubmed: 31013504
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Jun;49(6):769-777
pubmed: 28182335
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Aug;26(2):115-22
pubmed: 16038011
J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2016 Jan;45(1):80-5
pubmed: 25726254
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2013 Mar;27(2):131-7
pubmed: 23374057
Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Feb 1;137(2):e16-e28
pubmed: 33481528
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Apr;194(4):1042-9
pubmed: 16580294
BMJ. 2013 Jan 24;346:f108
pubmed: 23349424
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2021 Mar;152 Suppl 1:3-57
pubmed: 33740264
J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2013 Dec;42(8):872-94
pubmed: 24210714
Int J Epidemiol. 2020 Apr 1;49(2):368-369j
pubmed: 31747017
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Dec;38(6):673-80
pubmed: 21438052
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985 Feb 1;151(3):333-7
pubmed: 3881966
Prev Sci. 2007 Sep;8(3):206-13
pubmed: 17549635
BJOG. 2001 Aug;108(8):830-4
pubmed: 11510708
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Sep;6(3):168-74
pubmed: 8521065
BMC Pediatr. 2009 Sep 21;9:58
pubmed: 19772571
Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2017 Oct;45(10):545-551
pubmed: 29030147
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015 Oct;193:10-8
pubmed: 26207980
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Feb;218(2S):S609-S618
pubmed: 29422203
Am J Epidemiol. 2011 Feb 15;173(4):459-67
pubmed: 21135027
Am J Perinatol. 2013 Aug;30(7):565-72
pubmed: 23147078
Stat Med. 1996 Mar 30;15(6):646-58
pubmed: 8731006
J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2011 Dec;40(8):726-33
pubmed: 22056192
J Biosoc Sci. 2017 May;49(3):392-407
pubmed: 27692008
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Feb;218(2S):S855-S868
pubmed: 29422214