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 Feb 27;21(1):167.
doi: 10.1186/s12884-021-03640-9.

The impact of optimal dating on the assessment of fetal growth

Affiliations

The impact of optimal dating on the assessment of fetal growth

N Fries et al. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. .

Abstract

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: 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: 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- 4). Likewise, the number and percentage of foetuses classified as <3rd, < 10th, >90th and > 97th percentile demonstrated significant differences. As an example, the proportion of SGA foetuses varied from 3.46 to 4.57% (p = 0.02) and that of LGA foetuses from 17.86 to 13.4% (p < 10- 4).

Conclusion: 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.

Keywords: CRL; Dating; EFW; Fetal; Growth; Integrowth.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

N/A

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Observed distribution of CRL measurements in the first trimester and associated GA differences according to the two references [20, 21]

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Salomon LJ, Alfirevic Z, Da Silva Costa F, et al. ISUOG Practice guidelines: ultrasound assessment of fetal biometry and growth. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019;53:715–723. doi: 10.1002/uog.20272. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lees CC, Stampalija T, Baschat A, et al. ISUOG Practice guidelines: diagnosis and management of small-for-gestational-age fetus and fetal growth restriction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020;56:298–312. doi: 10.1002/uog.22134. - DOI - PubMed
    1. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 204 summary Fetal growth restriction. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133:390–392. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003071. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Martins JG, Biggio JR, Abuhamad A. Society for maternal-fetal medicine (SMFM) consult series #52: diagnosis and management of fetal growth restriction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020:S0002937820305354. 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.05.010. - PubMed
    1. Monier I, Blondel B, Ego A, et al. Poor effectiveness of antenatal detection of fetal growth restriction and consequences for obstetric management and neonatal outcomes: a French national study. BJOG. 2015;122:518–527. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13148. - DOI - PubMed