Diagnostic accuracy of individual antenatal tools for prediction of small-for-gestational age at birth

被引:31
|
作者
Poljak, B. [1 ]
Agarwal, U. [2 ]
Jackson, R. [3 ]
Alfirevic, Z. [1 ]
Sharp, A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Liverpool, Dept Womens & Childrens Hlth Res, Liverpool, Merseyside, England
[2] Liverpool Womens Hosp, Fetal Med Unit, Liverpool, Merseyside, England
[3] Liverpool Canc Trials Unit, Liverpool, Merseyside, England
关键词
fetal growth restriction; small-for-gestational age; ultrasound prediction; FETAL-GROWTH RESTRICTION; INTERGROWTH-21ST PROJECT; INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS; HEAD CIRCUMFERENCE; WEIGHT STANDARD; METAANALYSIS; STILLBIRTH; FETUSES; LENGTH; RISK;
D O I
10.1002/uog.17211
中图分类号
O42 [声学];
学科分类号
070206 ; 082403 ;
摘要
Objective To determine the accuracy of fetal and newborn growth charts for the prediction of small-forgestational age (SGA) at birth (birth weight<10th centile). Methods This was a prospective cohort study performed within a UK specialist fetal growth clinic. A total of 105 consecutive pregnant women referred for a suspected SGA fetus were included. All pregnancies were managed according to a standard protocol using estimated fetal weight (EFW) plotted on customized Gestation Related Optimal Weight (GROW) charts. The last antenatal estimates of EFW (according to charts of GROW, Hadlock et al. and Mikolajczyk et al.), abdominal circumference (AC) (according to charts of Hadlock et al., INTERGROWTH-21st Project and Chitty et al.) or change in AC over time (calculated according to Pregnancy Outcome Prediction (POP) study) were compared against four birth-weight charts (GROW, INTERGROWTH-21st, Mikolajczyk et al. and World Health Organization (WHO)). The ability of each antenatal test to predict adverse perinatal outcome (APO) was assessed. Results Birth weight < 10th centile was assigned in 62 (59%) neonates using the GROW chart, 57 (54%) using the Mikolajczyk et al. chart, 55 (52%) using the INTERGROWTH-21st chart and 51 (49%) using the WHOchart. AC-Hadlock had the best negative likelihood ratio (range, 0.3-0.4) and sensitivity (range, 74%-82%) for predicting SGA as defined by all four postnatal birth-weight charts. AC-INTERGROWTH-21st had the best positive likelihood ratio (range, 5.9-10.9) and specificity (94%-96%). For prediction of APO, AC-Hadlock and EFW-GROW had the best sensitivities (57% and 52%, respectively), whereas AC-POP had the best positive likelihood ratio (2.2) and specificity (88%). Antenatal prediction of APO increased to a sensitivity of 61% when AC-POP and EFW-GROW were combined; however, specificity was only 56%. Conclusions We have identified wide variation in the diagnostic accuracy of various antenatal tools for the prediction of both SGA and APO, dependent on the choice of chart. Suboptimal diagnostic accuracy of commonly used antenatal tests may lead to increasing medicalization without prevention of APO. Researchers should focus their attention on a combination of fetal biometry and biomarkers for better prediction of SGA and prevention of APO. Copyright (C) 2016 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:493 / 499
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Ultrasound Prediction of Small-for-Gestational Age at Birth: The More, the Merrier?
    Beddow, Meghan E.
    Blue, Nathan R.
    Savabi, Mariam
    Katukuri, Vivek R.
    Fritts, Cody
    Chao, Conrad R.
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2018, 131 : 194S - 194S
  • [2] The effect of antenatal corticosteroids on small-for-gestational age preterm neonates
    Razem, Katja
    Tul, Natasa
    Blickstein, Isaac
    Trojner Bregar, Andreja
    JOURNAL OF MATERNAL-FETAL & NEONATAL MEDICINE, 2022, 35 (02): : 362 - 365
  • [3] Prediction of small-for-gestational age by fetal growth rate according to gestational age
    Kim, Min-A
    Han, Gwan Hee
    Kim, Young-Han
    PLOS ONE, 2019, 14 (04):
  • [4] Maternal serum caffeine metabolites and small-for-gestational age birth
    Klebanoff, MA
    Levine, RJ
    Clemens, JD
    Wilkins, DG
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2002, 155 (01) : 32 - 37
  • [5] IRON STATUS AT BIRTH IN TERM SMALL-FOR-GESTATIONAL AGE INFANTS
    Mukhopadhyay, K.
    Yadav, R. K.
    Kishore, S. S.
    Garewal, G.
    Jain, V.
    Narang, A.
    PEDIATRIC RESEARCH, 2010, 68 : 536 - 536
  • [6] Re: Diagnostic accuracy of individual antenatal tools for prediction of small-for-gestational age at birth. B. Poljak, U. Agarwal, R. Jackson, Z. Alfirevic and A. Sharp. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017; 49: 493-499
    Deter, R. L.
    ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2017, 49 (04) : 433 - 434
  • [7] Accuracy of New Ballard Score in Small-for-gestational Age Neonates
    Quinto, Llorenc
    Garcia-Basteiro, Alberto L.
    Bardaji, Azucena
    Gonzalez, Raquel
    Padilla, Norma
    Martinez-Espinosa, Flor E.
    Arevalo-Herrera, Myriam
    Macete, Eusebio
    Menendez, Clara
    JOURNAL OF TROPICAL PEDIATRICS, 2017, 63 (06) : 495 - 498
  • [8] Does antenatal identification of small-for-gestational age fetuses significantly improve their outcome?
    Lindqvist, PG
    Molin, J
    ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2005, 25 (03) : 258 - 264
  • [9] Splenic artery Doppler in the prediction of the small-for-gestational age infant
    Oz, U
    Kovanci, E
    Jeffress, A
    Mendilicioglu, I
    Mari, G
    Bahado-Singh, RO
    ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2002, 20 (04) : 346 - 350
  • [10] Effect of uncomplicated chronic hypertension on the risk of small-for-gestational age birth
    Haelterman, E
    Breart, G
    ParisLlado, J
    Dramaix, M
    Tchobroutsky, C
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1997, 145 (08) : 689 - 695