Abstract:<section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Objective</h3><p>Predicting fetal growth restriction (FGR) is a challenge and recent international guidelines by the Society of Maternal Fetal Medicine (SMFM) and the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG) differ in their definitions of FGR. Our objective was to compare the prediction of small for gestational age (SGA) and a composite neonatal outcome using the SMFM and ISUOG definitions.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Methods</h3><p>This was a secondary analysis using data from a prospective study of women referred for growth ultrasound examinations. SMFM and ISUOG practice guidelines were used to define the population of patients with FGR. SMFM guidelines defined FGR as EFW or AC less than 10<sup>th</sup> percentile. ISUOG guidelines included EFW or AC less than 3<sup>rd</sup> percentile with various Doppler parameters including umbilical, uterine and middle cerebral arteries. The primary outcome was the prediction of neonatal SGA and a composite of neonatal morbidity and mortality by the two guidelines. The composite of neonatal morbidity was defined as Grade 3 and 4 interventricular hemorrhage, respiratory distress syndrome, neonatal death, pH<7.1, seizure, NICU admission. Test characteristics (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and positive (LR+) and negative (LR‐) likelihood rations) and area under the ROC curve (AUC) were determined. The association between the FGR detected by each guideline and adverse neonatal outcomes were assessed using logistic regression. </p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Results</h3><p>Of 1054 women meeting inclusion criteria, 137 (13.0%) and 80 (7.6%) were defined as having FGR by SMFM and ISUOG definitions, respectively. For prediction of SGA, the SMFM FGR definition had a higher sensitivity (54.7%) compared to the ISUOG FGR definition (38.1%). The ISUOG FGR definition had the highest specificity (97.1%). LR+ was highest for the ISUOG FGR definition. The SMFM and ISUOG FGR definitions were similarly poor in predicting a composite of neonatal morbidity with sensitivities of 15.1% and 11.5%, respectively.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Conclusion</h3><p>The SMFM guideline is associated with a higher detection rate for SGA but at the cost of some reduction in specificity. Both definitions of FGR performed poorly at predicting a composite of neonatal morbidity.</p><p>This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.</p></section>

Outcome‐based comparison of SMFM and ISUOG definitions of fetal growth restriction