Literature DB >> 29192969

Effects of applying universal fetal growth standards in a Scandinavian multi-ethnic population.

Line Sletner1, Torvid Kiserud2,3, Siri Vangen4,5, Britt Nakstad1,6, Anne K Jenum7.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The question of whether universal growth charts can be used in multi-ethnic settings is of general interest. The Intergrowth-21st fetal growth and newborn size standards are suggested to represent optimal fetal growth regardless of country origin. Our aim was to examine whether women fulfilling the strict Intergrowth-21st inclusion criteria were healthier, showed less ethnic differences in fetal growth and newborn size, and less adverse perinatal outcomes.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data were drawn from a population-based multi-ethnic cohort of 823 presumably healthy pregnant women in Oslo, Norway. We assessed differences in fetal and neonatal gestational age specific z-scores and compared maternal health parameters, pregnancy and birth complications between pregnancies fulfilling and not fulfilling the Intergrowth-21st criteria.
RESULTS: Only 21% of pregnancies enrolled in our cohort fulfilled the Intergrowth-21st criteria. Fetal growth deviated substantially from the new standards, in particular for ethnic Europeans. Ethnic differences persisted in pregnancies fulfilling the criteria. In South Asian fetuses, estimated fetal weight was -0.60 SD (95% confidence interval -1.00, -0.20) lower at 24 gestational weeks, and birthweight was -0.62 SD (-0.95, -0.29) lower, compared with ethnic Europeans. Corresponding numbers for Middle-East/North Africans were -0.13 (-0.62, 0.36) and -0.60 (-1.00, -0.20). Maternal health indicators and birth complications were similar in women fulfilling and not fulfilling the criteria, but the relation depended on ethnic origin.
CONCLUSIONS: In an urban multi-ethnic Norwegian population, applying an extensive list of criteria to define "healthy" pregnancies excludes the majority of women but does not cancel ethnic differences in fetal growth.
© 2017 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Ultrasound biometry; birth complications; ethnic differences; fetal growth; growth standards; maternal health; newborn size

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29192969     DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13269

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand        ISSN: 0001-6349            Impact factor:   3.636


  7 in total

1.  Endocrine disruptors and neonatal anthropometry, NICHD Fetal Growth Studies - Singletons.

Authors:  Germaine M Buck Louis; Shuyan Zhai; Melissa M Smarr; Jagteshwar Grewal; Cuilin Zhang; Katherine L Grantz; Stefanie N Hinkle; Rajeshwari Sundaram; Sunmi Lee; Masato Honda; JungKeun Oh; Kurunthachalam Kannan
Journal:  Environ Int       Date:  2018-07-26       Impact factor: 9.621

2.  Neonatal head circumference by gestation reflects adaptation to maternal body size: comparison of different standards.

Authors:  Ruta Morkuniene; Janina Tutkuviene; Tim J Cole; Egle Marija Jakimaviciene; Jelena Isakova; Agne Bankauskiene; Nijole Drazdiene; Vytautas Basys
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-06-30       Impact factor: 4.996

3.  Swedish intrauterine growth reference ranges of biometric measurements of fetal head, abdomen and femur.

Authors:  Linda Lindström; Mårten Ageheim; Ove Axelsson; Laith Hussain-Alkhateeb; Alkistis Skalkidou; Eva Bergman
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-12-31       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  The choice of reference chart affects the strength of the association between malaria in pregnancy and small for gestational age: an individual participant data meta-analysis comparing the Intergrowth-21 with a Tanzanian birthweight chart.

Authors:  George Mtove; Daniel T R Minja; Omari Abdul; Samwel Gesase; Kenneth Maleta; Titus H Divala; Noel Patson; Ulla Ashorn; Miriam K Laufer; Mwayiwawo Madanitsa; Per Ashorn; Don Mathanga; Jobiba Chinkhumba; Julie R Gutman; Feiko O Ter Kuile; Sofie Lykke Møller; Ib C Bygbjerg; Michael Alifrangis; Thor Theander; John P A Lusingu; Christentze Schmiegelow
Journal:  Malar J       Date:  2022-10-12       Impact factor: 3.469

5.  Swedish intrauterine growth reference ranges for estimated fetal weight.

Authors:  Linda Lindström; Mårten Ageheim; Ove Axelsson; Laith Hussain-Alkhateeb; Alkistis Skalkidou; Anna-Karin Wikström; Eva Bergman
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-06-14       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Should Fetal Growth Charts Be References or Standards?

Authors:  Jennifer A Hutcheon; Jessica Liauw
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 4.860

7.  Assessing fetal growth in Africa: Application of the international WHO and INTERGROWTH-21st standards in a Beninese pregnancy cohort.

Authors:  Emmanuel Yovo; Manfred Accrombessi; Gino Agbota; Alice Hocquette; William Atade; Olaiitan T Ladikpo; Murielle Mehoba; Auguste Degbe; Ghyslain Mombo-Ngoma; Achille Massougbodji; Nikki Jackson; Nadine Fievet; Barbara Heude; Jennifer Zeitlin; Valérie Briand
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-01-21       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.