Fetal Growth Diagnosis and Management among Perinatal Medical Professionals: A Survey of Practice and Literature Review
- PMID: 33823513
- DOI: 10.1159/000514504
Fetal Growth Diagnosis and Management among Perinatal Medical Professionals: A Survey of Practice and Literature Review
Abstract
Introduction: This paper aimed to assess the knowledge of healthcare professionals (obstetric and gynecology residents, specialists, and midwives) in the field of perinatal medicine regarding fetal growth diagnosis and management.
Methods: A questionnaire was created consisting of a set of questions regarding demographic data, methods of growth assessment, and management. It was a handout survey. The results were analyzed with the use of descriptive statistics and χ2 analysis using the program Statistica.
Results: 190 medical professionals have participated in the questionnaire. 86.3% of respondents agreed that pregnancy dating should be modified based on first-trimester ultrasound. 90.9% agreed that III trimester ultrasound has a ±15% margin of error. When asked which growth charts are best fit for assessing growth in a studied population, 10.7% marked standard, 37.4% reference, 26.2% customized, and 26.2% did not know the difference between the three choices. 60.3% stated that they use a growth chart to assess growth and qualify fetuses for monitoring. 70.2% used the 10th centile as a cutoff, 20.1% 5th centile, and 9.7% 3rd centile. Only 40.9% would diagnose fetal growth restriction based on fetal weight only. 28.7% using the 10th centile cutoff, 16.1% 5th centile, and 54.0% 3rd centile. Only a quarter of the respondents were able to name the growth chart or tool that they use for assessment. The most common responses were Yudkin, Hadlock, and online calculators of Fetal Medicina Barcelona and the Fetal Medicine Foundation.
Discussion: A lot of confusion is observed primarily in the aspect of cutoff values for identification, subsequent monitoring, and management of fetal growth restriction. There is a need for extensive training and education in this field and uniform national recommendations.
Keywords: Doppler; Fetal growth restriction; Growth charts; Management; Small gestational age; Survey.
© 2021 S. Karger AG, Basel.
Similar articles
-
Evidence-based national guidelines for the management of suspected fetal growth restriction: comparison, consensus, and controversy.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Feb;218(2S):S855-S868. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.12.004. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018. PMID: 29422214 Review.
-
Which chart and which cut-point: deciding on the INTERGROWTH, World Health Organization, or Hadlock fetal growth chart.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022 Jan 10;22(1):25. doi: 10.1186/s12884-021-04324-0. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022. PMID: 35012473 Free PMC article.
-
Fetal growth restriction and intra-uterine growth restriction: guidelines for clinical practice from the French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians.Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015 Oct;193:10-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.06.021. Epub 2015 Jul 2. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015. PMID: 26207980
-
Reduced growth velocity from the mid-trimester is associated with placental insufficiency in fetuses born at a normal birthweight.BMC Med. 2020 Dec 24;18(1):395. doi: 10.1186/s12916-020-01869-3. BMC Med. 2020. PMID: 33357243 Free PMC article.
-
Diagnostic performance of third-trimester ultrasound for the prediction of late-onset fetal growth restriction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 May;220(5):449-459.e19. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.09.043. Epub 2019 Jan 8. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019. PMID: 30633918
Cited by
-
Prediction of large-for-gestational-age infant by fetal growth charts and hemoglobin A1c level in pregnancy complicated by pregestational diabetes.Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Dec;60(6):751-758. doi: 10.1002/uog.26071. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2022. PMID: 36099480 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical