Yky Cheng1, T Y Leung1, Tth Lao1, Y M Chan1, D S Sahota2. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, Hong Kong SAR, China. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, Hong Kong SAR, China. daljit@cuhk.edu.hk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of adopting the INTERGROWTH-21(st) biometry standards in a Chinese population. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: A teaching hospital in Hong Kong. POPULATION: A total of 10 527 Chinese women with a singleton pregnancy having a second- or third-trimester fetal anomaly or growth scan between January 2009 and June 2014. METHODS: Z-scores were derived for fetal abdominal circumference (AC), head circumference (HC), and femur length (FL) using the INTERGROWTH-21(st) and Chinese biometry standards. Pregnancies with aneuploidy, structural or skeletal abnormalities, or that developed pre-eclampsia were excluded. Z-scores were stratified as <2.5th, <5th, <10th, >90th, >95th, or >97.5th percentile. Birthweight centile, adjusted for gestation and gender, was categorised as ≤3rd, 3rd to ≤5th, 5th to ≤10th, and >10th. Pairwise comparison and the McNemar test were performed to assess biometry Z-score differences and concordance between the INTERGROWTH-21(st) and Chinese standards. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The sensitivity of both the local and INTERGROWTH-21(st) AC standards to identify pregnancies that were small-for-gestational-age (SGA) was assessed. RESULTS: INTERGROWTH-21(st) AC, HC, and FL Z-scores were significantly lower than those obtained using our local reference for AC, HC, and FL (P < 0.0001 for all). The proportion of fetuses with biometry in the <2.5th, <5th, <10th, >90th, >95th, or >97.5th percentiles was statistically significant (P < 0.01 for all). A total of 1224 (15.5%) of the scans at 18-22 weeks of gestation had AC, HC, or FL below the 3rd percentile of the INTERGROWTH-21(st) standard. CONCLUSIONS: Adopting the INTERGROWTH-21(st) standard would lead to a significant number of fetuses being at risk of misdiagnosis for small fetal size, particularly when using HC and FL measures. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: INTERGROWTH-21(st) biometry assessment in Chinese leads to fetuses being at risk of misdiagnosis of small fetal size.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of adopting the INTERGROWTH-21(st) biometry standards in a Chinese population. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: A teaching hospital in Hong Kong. POPULATION: A total of 10 527 Chinese women with a singleton pregnancy having a second- or third-trimester fetal anomaly or growth scan between January 2009 and June 2014. METHODS: Z-scores were derived for fetal abdominal circumference (AC), head circumference (HC), and femur length (FL) using the INTERGROWTH-21(st) and Chinese biometry standards. Pregnancies with aneuploidy, structural or skeletal abnormalities, or that developed pre-eclampsia were excluded. Z-scores were stratified as <2.5th, <5th, <10th, >90th, >95th, or >97.5th percentile. Birthweight centile, adjusted for gestation and gender, was categorised as ≤3rd, 3rd to ≤5th, 5th to ≤10th, and >10th. Pairwise comparison and the McNemar test were performed to assess biometry Z-score differences and concordance between the INTERGROWTH-21(st) and Chinese standards. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The sensitivity of both the local and INTERGROWTH-21(st) AC standards to identify pregnancies that were small-for-gestational-age (SGA) was assessed. RESULTS: INTERGROWTH-21(st) AC, HC, and FL Z-scores were significantly lower than those obtained using our local reference for AC, HC, and FL (P < 0.0001 for all). The proportion of fetuses with biometry in the <2.5th, <5th, <10th, >90th, >95th, or >97.5th percentiles was statistically significant (P < 0.01 for all). A total of 1224 (15.5%) of the scans at 18-22 weeks of gestation had AC, HC, or FL below the 3rd percentile of the INTERGROWTH-21(st) standard. CONCLUSIONS: Adopting the INTERGROWTH-21(st) standard would lead to a significant number of fetuses being at risk of misdiagnosis for small fetal size, particularly when using HC and FL measures. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: INTERGROWTH-21(st) biometry assessment in Chinese leads to fetuses being at risk of misdiagnosis of small fetal size.
Authors: Nir Melamed; Ahmet Baschat; Yoav Yinon; Apostolos Athanasiadis; Federico Mecacci; Francesc Figueras; Vincenzo Berghella; Amala Nazareth; Muna Tahlak; H David McIntyre; Fabrício Da Silva Costa; Anne B Kihara; Eran Hadar; Fionnuala McAuliffe; Mark Hanson; Ronald C Ma; Rachel Gooden; Eyal Sheiner; Anil Kapur; Hema Divakar; Diogo Ayres-de-Campos; Liran Hiersch; Liona C Poon; John Kingdom; Roberto Romero; Moshe Hod Journal: Int J Gynaecol Obstet Date: 2021-03 Impact factor: 3.561
Authors: Anne Cc Lee; Naoko Kozuki; Simon Cousens; Gretchen A Stevens; Hannah Blencowe; Mariangela F Silveira; Ayesha Sania; Heather E Rosen; Christentze Schmiegelow; Linda S Adair; Abdullah H Baqui; Fernando C Barros; Zulfiqar A Bhutta; Laura E Caulfield; Parul Christian; Siân E Clarke; Wafaie Fawzi; Rogelio Gonzalez; Jean Humphrey; Lieven Huybregts; Simon Kariuki; Patrick Kolsteren; John Lusingu; Dharma Manandhar; Aroonsri Mongkolchati; Luke C Mullany; Richard Ndyomugyenyi; Jyh Kae Nien; Dominique Roberfroid; Naomi Saville; Dianne J Terlouw; James M Tielsch; Cesar G Victora; Sithembiso C Velaphi; Deborah Watson-Jones; Barbara A Willey; Majid Ezzati; Joy E Lawn; Robert E Black; Joanne Katz Journal: BMJ Date: 2017-08-17
Authors: Annelies Wilder-Smith; Yinghui Wei; Thalia Velho Barreto de Araújo; Maria VanKerkhove; Celina Maria Turchi Martelli; Marília Dalva Turchi; Mauro Teixeira; Adriana Tami; João Souza; Patricia Sousa; Antoni Soriano-Arandes; Carmen Soria-Segarra; Nuria Sanchez Clemente; Kerstin Daniela Rosenberger; Ludovic Reveiz; Arnaldo Prata-Barbosa; Léo Pomar; Luiza Emylce Pelá Rosado; Freddy Perez; Saulo D Passos; Mauricio Nogueira; Trevor P Noel; Antônio Moura da Silva; Maria Elisabeth Moreira; Ivonne Morales; Maria Consuelo Miranda Montoya; Demócrito de Barros Miranda-Filho; Lauren Maxwell; Calum N L Macpherson; Nicola Low; Zhiyi Lan; Angelle Desiree LaBeaud; Marion Koopmans; Caron Kim; Esaú João; Thomas Jaenisch; Cristina Barroso Hofer; Paul Gustafson; Patrick Gérardin; Jucelia S Ganz; Ana Carolina Fialho Dias; Vanessa Elias; Geraldo Duarte; Thomas Paul Alfons Debray; María Luisa Cafferata; Pierre Buekens; Nathalie Broutet; Elizabeth B Brickley; Patrícia Brasil; Fátima Brant; Sarah Bethencourt; Andrea Benedetti; Vivian Lida Avelino-Silva; Ricardo Arraes de Alencar Ximenes; Antonio Alves da Cunha; Jackeline Alger Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-06-18 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Debora Farias Batista Leite; Aude-Claire Morillon; Elias F Melo Júnior; Renato T Souza; Fergus P McCarthy; Ali Khashan; Philip Baker; Louise C Kenny; Jose Guilherme Cecatti Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-08-10 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Joan T Price; Bellington Vwalika; Katelyn J Rittenhouse; Humphrey Mwape; Jennifer Winston; Bethany L Freeman; Ntazana Sindano; Elizabeth M Stringer; Margaret P Kasaro; Benjamin H Chi; Jeffrey Sa Stringer Journal: Gates Open Res Date: 2020-01-24
Authors: Anna L Funk; Bruno Hoen; Ingrid Vingdassalom; Catherine Ryan; Philippe Kadhel; Kinda Schepers; Stanie Gaete; Benoit Tressières; Arnaud Fontanet Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis Date: 2021-03-03