Literature DB >> 29422204

The World Health Organization fetal growth charts: concept, findings, interpretation, and application.

Torvid Kiserud1, Alexandra Benachi2, Kurt Hecher3, Rogelio González Perez4, José Carvalho5, Gilda Piaggio6, Lawrence D Platt7.   

Abstract

Ultrasound biometry is an important clinical tool for the identification, monitoring, and management of fetal growth restriction and development of macrosomia. This is even truer in populations in which perinatal morbidity and mortality rates are high, which is a reason that much effort is put onto making the technique available everywhere, including low-income societies. Until recently, however, commonly used reference ranges were based on single populations largely from industrialized countries. Thus, the World Health Organization prioritized the establishment of fetal growth charts for international use. New fetal growth charts for common fetal measurements and estimated fetal weight were based on a longitudinal study of 1387 low-risk pregnant women from 10 countries (Argentina, Brazil, Democratic Republic of Congo, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Norway, and Thailand) that provided 8203 sets of ultrasound measurements. The participants were characterized by median age 28 years, 58% nulliparous, normal body mass index, with no socioeconomic or nutritional constraints (median caloric intake, 1840 calories/day), and had the ability to attend the ultrasound sessions, thus essentially representing urban populations. Median gestational age at birth was 39 weeks, and birthweight was 3300 g, both with significant differences among countries. Quantile regression was used to establish the fetal growth charts, which also made it possible to demonstrate a number of features of fetal growth that previously were not well appreciated or unknown: (1) There was an asymmetric distribution of estimated fetal weight in the population. During early second trimester, the distribution was wider among fetuses <50th percentile compared with those above. The pattern was reversed in the third trimester, with a notably wider variation >50th percentile. (2) Although fetal sex, maternal factors (height, weight, age, and parity), and country had significant influence on fetal weight (1-4.5% each), their effect was graded across the percentiles. For example, the positive effect of maternal height on fetal weight was strongest on the lowest percentiles and smallest on the highest percentiles for estimated fetal weight. (3) When adjustment was made for maternal covariates, there was still a significant effect of country as covariate that indicated that ethnic, cultural, and geographic variation play a role. (4) Variation between populations was not restricted to fetal size because there were also differences in growth trajectories. (5) The wide physiologic ranges, as illustrated by the 5th-95th percentile for estimated fetal weight being 2205-3538 g at 37 weeks gestation, signify that human fetal growth under optimized maternal conditions is not uniform. Rather, it has a remarkable variation that largely is unexplained by commonly known factors. We suggest this variation could be part of our common biologic strategy that makes human evolution extremely successful. The World Health Organization fetal growth charts are intended to be used internationally based on low-risk pregnancies from populations in Africa, Asia, Europe, and South America. We consider it prudent to test and monitor whether the growth charts' performance meets the local needs, because refinements are possible by a change in cut-offs or customization for fetal sex, maternal factors, and populations. In the same line, the study finding of variations emphasizes the need for carefully adjusted growth charts that reflect optimal local growth when public health issues are addressed.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  birthweight; estimated fetal weight; fetal development; fetal growth; fetus; growth standard; maternal characteristic; multicenter; population variation; reference range; ultrasound

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29422204     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.12.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  45 in total

1.  Fetal size standards to diagnose a small- or a large-for-gestational-age fetus.

Authors:  Roberto Romero; Adi L Tarca
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  FIGO (international Federation of Gynecology and obstetrics) initiative on fetal growth: best practice advice for screening, diagnosis, and management of fetal growth restriction.

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

3.  Prediction of adverse perinatal outcome by fetal biometry: comparison of customized and population-based standards.

Authors:  D Kabiri; R Romero; D W Gudicha; E Hernandez-Andrade; P Pacora; N Benshalom-Tirosh; D Tirosh; L Yeo; O Erez; S S Hassan; A L Tarca
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 7.299

4.  Quality and quantification: Is it time to rethink?

Authors:  Gillian Whalley
Journal:  Australas J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2022-02-24

5.  A comparison of four fetal biometry growth charts within an Australian obstetric population.

Authors:  Candice Dry; Michelle K Pedretti; Elizabeth Nathan; Jan E Dickinson
Journal:  Australas J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2022-02-24

6.  Centile Charts for Monitoring of Weight Loss Trajectories After Bariatric Surgery in Asian Patients.

Authors:  Sarah Ying Tse Tan; Nicholas L Syn; Daryl J Lin; Chin Hong Lim; Sonali Ganguly; Hock Soo Ong; Jeremy Tian Hui Tan; Phong Ching Lee
Journal:  Obes Surg       Date:  2021-08-06       Impact factor: 4.129

7.  Postnatal development of skeletal muscle in pigs with intrauterine growth restriction: morphofunctional phenotype and molecular mechanisms.

Authors:  Fernando Felicioni; Andreia D Pereira; Andre L Caldeira-Brant; Thais G Santos; Thais M D Paula; Diogo Magnabosco; Fernando P Bortolozzo; Stephen Tsoi; Michael K Dyck; Walter Dixon; Patricia M Martinelli; Erika C Jorge; Helio Chiarini-Garcia; Fernanda R C L Almeida
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2020-01-29       Impact factor: 2.610

8.  The prevalence of abnormal Doppler's of the umbilical artery in a low-risk pregnant population in South Africa.

Authors:  Tmag Hlongwane; T Cronje; Bss Nkosi; R C Pattinson
Journal:  EClinicalMedicine       Date:  2021-03-18

9.  Fetal growth standards for Somali population.

Authors:  Hiba J Mustafa; Katelyn M Tessier; Lauren A Reagan; Xianghua Luo; Stephen A Contag
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2019-09-23

10.  Personalized assessment of cervical length improves prediction of spontaneous preterm birth: a standard and a percentile calculator.

Authors:  Dereje W Gudicha; Roberto Romero; Doron Kabiri; Edgar Hernandez-Andrade; Percy Pacora; Offer Erez; Juan Pedro Kusanovic; Eunjung Jung; Carmen Paredes; Stanley M Berry; Lami Yeo; Sonia S Hassan; Chaur-Dong Hsu; Adi L Tarca
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2020-09-09       Impact factor: 8.661

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.