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
. 2021 Jan;32(1):14-17.
doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001275.

Should Fetal Growth Charts Be References or Standards?

Jennifer A Hutcheon  1 , Jessica Liauw
Affiliations

Should Fetal Growth Charts Be References or Standards?

Jennifer A Hutcheon et al. Epidemiology. 2021 Jan.

Abstract

Background: Fetal growth standards (prescriptive charts derived from low-risk pregnancies) are theoretically better tools to monitor fetal growth than conventional references. We examined how modifying chart inclusion criteria influenced the resulting curves.

Methods: We summarized estimated fetal weight (EFW) distributions from a hospital's routine 32-week ultrasound in all nonanomalous singleton fetuses (reference) and in those without maternal-fetal conditions affecting fetal growth (standard). We calculated EFWs for the 3rd, 5th, 10th, and 50th percentiles, and the proportion of fetuses each chart classified as small for gestational age.

Results: Of 2309 fetuses in our reference, 690 (30%) met the standard's inclusion criteria. There were no meaningful differences between the EFW distributions of the reference and standard curves (50th percentile: 1989 g reference vs. 1968 g standard; 10th percentile: 1711 g reference vs. 1710 g standard), or the proportion of small for gestational age fetuses (both 9.9%).

Conclusions: In our study, there was little practical difference between a fetal growth reference and standard for detecting small infants.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure.
Figure.
Estimated fetal weight distributions at 32 weeks of reference (all nonanomalous singletons) vs. standard (nonanomalous singletons with no maternal or fetal conditions associated with suboptimal fetal growth) populations, Royal Victoria Hospital, Montreal, Canada.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Martinez-Poyer J. In utero analysis of fetal growth: a sonographic weight standard. Radiology. 1991;181:129–133. - PubMed
    1. Lubchenco LO, Hansman C, Dressler M, Boyd E. Intrauterine growth as estimated from liveborn birth-weight data at 24 to 42 weeks of gestation. Pediatrics. 1963;32:793–800. - PubMed
    1. McIntire DD, Bloom SL, Casey BM, Leveno KJ. Birth weight in relation to morbidity and mortality among newborn infants. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:1234–1238. - PubMed
    1. Ioannou C, Talbot K, Ohuma E, et al. Systematic review of methodology used in ultrasound studies aimed at creating charts of fetal size. BJOG. 2012;119:1425–1439. - PubMed
    1. Kiserud T, Piaggio G, Carroli G, 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. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types