Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2011 Mar 1;173(5):539-43.
doi: 10.1093/aje/kwq411. Epub 2011 Jan 20.

Prenatal application of the individualized fetal growth reference

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Prenatal application of the individualized fetal growth reference

Jun Zhang et al. Am J Epidemiol. .

Abstract

The individualized reference for defining small for gestational age (SGA) at birth has gained popularity in recent years. However, its utility on fetal assessment has not been evaluated. The authors compare an individualized with an ultrasound reference in predicting poor perinatal outcomes. Data from a large clinical trial in predominantly white US women (1987-1991) with singleton pregnancies (n = 9,526) were used. The individualized reference classified fewer SGA fetuses than the ultrasound reference, but the risks of adverse outcomes were similar between fetuses classified by both references. The risk increased substantially only when the percentiles fell below the 5th percentile (likelihood ratio positive at birth = 2.68 (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.00, 3.58) and 3.13 (95% CI: 2.34, 4.18) for ultrasound and individualized references, respectively). SGA fetuses defined by either the individualized or ultrasound reference alone had risk ratios of adverse outcomes of 1.91 (95% CI: 0.77, 4.77) and 1.18 (95% CI: 0.37, 3.77), respectively, compared with normal fetuses (the difference between these 2 risk ratios, P = 0.71). The authors conclude that neither the ultrasound-based nor the individualized reference does well in predicting adverse perinatal outcomes. The 5th percentile may be a better cutpoint than the 10th percentile in defining SGA.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Zhang J, Merialdi M, Platt LD, et al. Defining normal and abnormal fetal growth: promises and challenges. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(6):522–528. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gardosi J, Chang A, Kalyan B, et al. Customised antenatal growth charts. Lancet. 1992;339(8788):283–287. - PubMed
    1. Brenner WE, Edelman DA, Hendricks CH. A standard of fetal growth for the United States of America. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1976;126(5):555–564. - PubMed
    1. Gardosi J, Mongelli M, Wilcox M, et al. An adjustable fetal weight standard. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1995;6(3):168–174. - PubMed
    1. Resnik R. One size does not fit all. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197(3):221–222. - PubMed

Publication types