Prospective Comparative Evaluation of Performance of Fetal Growth Charts in the Diagnosis of Suboptimal Fetal Growth During Third Trimester Ultrasound Examination in an Unselected South Indian Antenatal Population

Abstract

Growth standards are key tools in assigning fetal smallness. Growth charts are central to this. The availability of growth charts with varying conceptual methodology and design makes their comparison imperative to ensure wise clinical decision making. This was a prospective, descriptive and correlational study performed at two fetal medicine centers, on 1019 unselected third trimester South Indian women with singleton pregnancies. The estimated fetal weight (EFW) was calculated from one dataset per woman using the Hadlock III formula. The EFW centiles were obtained from eight prenatal growth charts: Hadlock, FMF, Spanish, INTERGROWTH, WHO, NICHD, Mikolajczyk and GROW (fully customized), and categorized to ≤ 5th, 5.1 to ≤ 10th, 10.1–89.9th and ≥ 90 centiles. Comparison was done with similar categories of neonatal birthweight centiles obtained from Fenton, INTERGROWTH and GROW customized neonatal standards. At EFW cut-off of ≤ 10th centile, the sensitivity range of the fetal growth charts were between 9.5 and 60% and the false positive rates (FPR) between 1.9 and 18.38%. Similar figures for EFW ≤ 5th centile, were 9.5–64.2% and 1.0–12.8%, respectively. The INTERGROWTH chart had the highest positive predictive value of 54.6–63.6%. The FMF chart had the highest sensitivity and the highest FPR. The sensitivity, at a cut-off of ≤ 5th centile, of Mikolajczyk (9.5–12.6%), and the GROW (14.4–18.9%) prenatal charts were closest to the incidence of uteroplacental insufficiency (7.9%) in our study. Wide variations noted in the performance of prenatal and neonatal growth charts in detecting fetal-neonatal smallness indicates the need for critical selection of growth charts and possibly additional supportive information in clinical decision making.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.

    NICE. Antenatal care: routine care for the healthy pregnant woman. National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence: London, 2008.

  2. 2.

    Figueras F, Gratacós E. Update on the diagnosis and classification of fetal growth restriction and proposal of a stage-based management protocol. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2014;36:86–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    de Onis M, Blössner M, Villar J. Levels and patterns of intrauterine growth retardation in developing countries. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1998;52(Suppl 1):S5–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Romo A, Carceller R, Tobajas J. Intrauterine growth retardation (IUGR): epidemiology and etiology. Pediatr Endocrinol Rev. 2009;6(Suppl 3):332–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Gardosi J, Kady SM, McGeown P, Francis A, Tonks A. Classification of stillbirth by relevant condition at death (ReCoDe): population based cohort study. BMJ. 2005;331:1113–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Marlow N, Wolke D, Bracewell MA, Samara M. Neurologic and developmental disability at six years of age after extremely preterm birth. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(1):9–19.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Brodszki J, Morsing E, Malcus P, Thuring A, Ley D, Marsal K. Early intervention in management of very preterm growth-restricted fetuses: 2-year outcome of infants delivered on fetal indication before 30 gestational weeks. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;34(3):288–96.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Morsing E, Asard M, Ley D, Stjernqvist K, Marsal K. Cognitive function after intrauterine growth restriction and very preterm birth. Pediatrics. 2011;127(4):e874–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Barker DJ. Adult consequences of fetal growth restriction. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2006;49:270–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Mifsud W, Sebire NJ. Placental pathology in early-onset and late-onset fetal growth restriction. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2014;36:117–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Kiserud T, Piaggio G, Carroli G, Widmer M, Carvalho J, Jensen LN, et al. The World Health Organization fetal growth charts: a multinational longitudinal study of ultrasound biometric measurements and estimated fetal weight. PLoS Med. 2017;14:e1002220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Zhang J, Merialdi M, Platt LD, Kramer MS. Defining normal and abnormal fetal growth: promises and challenges. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(6):522–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Gardosi J, Chang A, Kalyan B, Sahota D, Symonds EM. Customised antenatal growth charts. Lancet. 1992;339:283–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Salomon LJ, Alfirevic Z, Berghella V, Bilardo C, Hernandez-Andrade E, Johnsen SL, et al. Practice guidelines for performance of the routine mid- trimester fetal ultrasound scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;37(1):116–26.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Sharman RS, Deter RL, Park SK. Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements: a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985;151:333–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Martinez-Poyer J. In utero analysis of fetal growth: a sonographic weight standard. Radiology. 1991;181:129–33.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Papageorghiou AT, Ohuma EO, Altman DG, Todros T, Ismail Cheikh, Lambert A, et al. International standards for fetal growth based on serial ultrasound measurements: the Fetal Growth Longitudinal Study of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project. Lancet. 2014;384:869–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Stirnemann J, Villar J, Salomon LJ, Ohuma E, Ruyan P, Altman DG, et al. International estimated fetal weight standards of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;49:478–86.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Buck Louis GM, Grewal J, Albert PS, Sciscione A, Wing DA, Grobman WA, et al. Racial/ethnic standards for fetal growth: the NICHD Fetal Growth Studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213(449):e1–41.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Mikolajczyk RT, Zhang J, Betran AP, Souza JP, Mori R, Gülmezoglu AM, et al. A global reference for fetal-weight and birthweight percentiles. Lancet. 2011;377:1855–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Nicolaides KH, Wright D, Syngelaki A, Wright A, Akolekar R. Fetal Medicine Foundation fetal and neonatal population weight charts. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;52:44–51.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Figueras F, Meler E, Iraola A, Eixarch E, Coll O, Figueras J, et al. Customized birthweight standards for a Spanish population. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008;136(1):20–4.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Gardosi J, Mongelli M, Wilcox M, Chang A, Sahota D, Francis A. Gestation related optimal weight (GROW) program. Software version 5.12,2003. Perinatal Institute. www.gestation.net.

  24. 24.

    Fenton TR, Kim JH. A systematic review and meta-analysis to revise the Fenton growth chart for preterm infants. BMC Pediatr. 2013;13:59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Fenton TR, Nasser R, Eliasziw M, Kim JH, Bilan D, Sauve R. Validating the weight gain of preterm infants between the reference growth curve of the fetus and the term infant. BMC Pediatr. 2013;13(1):92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Ioannou C, Talbot K, Ohuma E, Sarris I, Villar J, Conde-Agudelo A, et al. Systematic review of methodology used in ultrasound studies aimed at creating charts of fetal size. BJOG. 2012;119(12):1425–39.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Poljak B, Agarwal U, Jackson R, Alfirevic Z, Sharp A. Diagnostic accuracy of individual antenatal tools for prediction of small-for-gestational age at birth. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;49:493–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Bhatia M, Dwivedi LK, Ranjan M, Dixit P, Putcha V. Trends, patterns and predictive factors of infant and child mortality in well-performing and underperforming states of India: a secondary analysis using National Family Health Surveys. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e023875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Ohuma EO, Njim T, Sharps MC. Current issues in the development of foetal growth references and standards. Curr Epidemiol Rep. 2018;5(4):388–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Salomon LJ, Bernard JP, Duyme M, Buvat I, Ville Y. The impact of choice of reference charts and equations on the assessment of fetal biometry. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;25(6):559–65.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Cheng YKY, Leung TY, Lao TTH, Chan YM, Sahota DS. Impact of replacing Chinese ethnicity-specific fetal biometry charts with the INTERGROWTH-21st standard. BJOG. 2016;123(S3):48–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Daniel-Spiegel E, Mandel M, Nevo D, Ben-Chetrit A, Shen O, Shalev E, et al. Fetal biometry in the Israeli population: new reference charts. Isr Med Assoc J. 2016;18(1):40–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Uauy R, Casanello P, Krause B, Kuzanovic JP, Corvalan C, for the International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st Century (INTERGROWTH‐21st). Conceptual basis for prescriptive growth standards from conception to early childhood: present and future. BJOG. 2013;120:3–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Bertino E, Milani S, Fabris C, De Curtis M. Neonatal anthropometric charts: what they are, what they are not. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2007;92(1):F7–10.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Gardosi J, Francis A. Adverse pregnancy outcome and association with small for gestational age birthweight by customized and population-based percentiles. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201(28):e1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Costantine MM, Lai Y, Bloom SL, Spong CY, Varner MW, Rouse DJ. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal—Fetal Medicine Units Network. Population versus customized fetal growth norms and adverse outcomes in an intrapartum cohort. Am J Perinatol. 2013;30:335–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Gardosi J, Francis A, Turner S, Williams M. Customized growth charts: rationale, validation and clinical benefits. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218(2):S609–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Costantine MM, Mele L, Landon MB, Spong CY, Ramin SM, Casey B, et al. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Customized versus population approach for evaluation of fetal overgrowth. Am J Perinatol. 2013;30:565–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Carberry AE, Gordon A, Bond DM, Hyett J, Raynes-Greenow CH, Jeffery HE. Customised versus population-based growth charts as a screening tool for detecting small for gestational age infants in low-risk pregnant women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;16:CD008549.

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Chiossi G, Pedroza C, Costantine MM, Truong VTT, Gargano G, Saade GR. Customized vs population-based growth charts to identify neonates at risk of adverse outcome: systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis of observational studies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;50:156–66.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We express our sincere gratitude to the clerical staff of our fetal medicine unit for their valuable support in data collection.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seneesh Kumar Vikraman.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vikraman, S.K., Elayedatt, R.A. Prospective Comparative Evaluation of Performance of Fetal Growth Charts in the Diagnosis of Suboptimal Fetal Growth During Third Trimester Ultrasound Examination in an Unselected South Indian Antenatal Population. J. Fetal Med. 7, 103–110 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40556-020-00244-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Fetal growth charts
  • Fetal growth standards
  • Small for gestational age
  • Fetal growth restriction
  • Third trimester fetal ultrasound
  • Hadlock
  • Intergrowth
  • GROW
  • Neonatal growth standards