Abstract:Objective: To compare the predictive performance of estimated fetal weight (EFW) percentiles, according to eight growth standards, to detect fetuses at risk for adverse perinatal outcome. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of 3437 African-American women. Population-based (Hadlock, INTERGROWTH-21st , World Health Organization (WHO), Fetal Medicine Foundation (FMF)), ethnicity-specific (Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)), customized (Gestation-Related Optimal Weight (GROW)) and African-American customized (Perinatology Research Branch (PRB)/NICHD) growth standards were used to calculate EFW percentiles from the last available scan prior to delivery. Prediction performance indices and relative risk (RR) were calculated for EFW < 10th and > 90th percentiles, according to each standard, for individual and composite adverse perinatal outcomes. Sensitivity at a fixed (10%) false-positive rate (FPR) and partial (FPR < 10%) and full areas under the receiver-operating-characteristics curves (AUC) were compared between the standards. Results: Ten percent (341/3437) of neonates were classified as small-for-gestational age (SGA) at birth, and of these 16.4% (56/341) had at least one adverse perinatal outcome. SGA neonates had a 1.5-fold increased risk of any adverse perinatal outcome (P < 0.05). The screen-positive rate of EFW < 10th percentile varied from 6.8% (NICHD) to 24.4% (FMF). EFW < 10th percentile, according to all standards, was associated with an increased risk for each of the adverse perinatal outcomes considered (P < 0.05 for all). The highest RRs associated with EFW < 10th percentile for each adverse outcome were 5.1 (95% CI, 2.1-12.3) for perinatal mortality (WHO); 5.0 (95% CI, 3.2-7.8) for perinatal hypoglycemia (NICHD); 3.4 (95% CI, 2.4-4.7) for mechanical ventilation (NICHD); 2.9 (95% CI, 1.8-4.6) for 5-min Apgar score < 7 (GROW); 2.7 (95% CI, 2.0-3.6) for neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission (NICHD); and 2.5 (95% CI, 1.9-3.1) for composite adverse perinatal outcome (NICHD). Although the RR CIs overlapped among all standards for each individual outcome, the RR of composite adverse perinatal outcome in pregnancies with EFW < 10th percentile was higher according to the NICHD (2.46; 95% CI, 1.9-3.1) than the FMF (1.47; 95% CI, 1.2-1.8) standard. The sensitivity for composite adverse perinatal outcome varied substantially between standards, ranging from 15% for NICHD to 32% for FMF, due mostly to differences in FPR; this variation subsided when the FPR was set to the same value (10%). Analysis of AUC revealed significantly better performance for the prediction of perinatal mortality by the PRB/NICHD standard (AUC = 0.70) compared with the Hadlock (AUC = 0.66) and FMF (AUC = 0.64) standards. Evaluation of partial AUC (FPR < 10%) demonstrated that the INTERGROWTH-21st standard performed better than the Hadlock standard for the prediction of NICU admission and mechanical ventilation (P < 0.05 for both). Although fetuses with EFW > 90th percentile were also at risk for any adverse perinatal outcome according to the INTERGROWTH-21st (RR = 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-1.9) and Hadlock (RR = 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.6) standards, many times fewer cases (2-5-fold lower sensitivity) were detected by using EFW > 90th percentile, rather than EFW < 10th percentile, in screening by these standards. Conclusions: Fetuses with EFW < 10th percentile or EFW > 90th percentile were at increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes according to all or some of the eight growth standards, respectively. The RR of a composite adverse perinatal outcome in pregnancies with EFW < 10th percentile was higher for the most-stringent (NICHD) compared with the least-stringent (FMF) standard. The results of the complementary analysis of AUC suggest slightly improved detection of adverse perinatal outcome by more recent population-based (INTERGROWTH-21st ) and customized (PRB/NICHD) standards compared with the Hadlock and FMF standards. Published 2019. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Consolidated and updated ultrasonographic fetal biometry and estimated fetal weight references for the Hong Kong Chinese population

Which fetal biometry charts should be used? A large validation study in mainland China

Standards for Fetal Abdominal Circumference and Estimated Fetal Weight in Shanghai, China

Accuracy of sonographic fetal weight estimation prior to delivery in a Chinese han population

Which Fetal Growth Charts Should Be Used? A Retrospective Observational Study in China

Chinese Fetal Biometry: Reference Equations and Comparison with Charts from Other Populations.

Fitness of INTERGROWTH-21st birth weight standards for Chinese-ethnicity babies

Evaluating the accuracy of sonographic fetal weight estimations using the Hadlock IV formula in a Chinese population

Conditional Standards for the Quantification of Foetal Growth in an Ethnic Chinese Population: a Longitudinal Study.

Chinese Fetal Growth: A Multicenter Cohort Study Based on Fetal Ultrasound Measurements

Reference Charts and Equations of Fetal Biometry for Normal Singleton Pregnant Women in Shaanxi, China.

Gestational age estimation from ultrasound fetal biometrics in China

Development and validation of an ultrasound-based estimated fetal weight reference for Chinese twin pregnancy: a retrospective cohort study

Effects of Pre-Pregnancy Body Mass Index and Gestational Weight Gain on Neonatal Birth Weight

Measurement of Fetal Abdominal and Subscapular Subcutaneous Tissue Thickness During Pregnancy to Predict Macrosomia: a Pilot Study.

Estimated Fetal Weight and Fetal Sex

Development of fetal growth charts in twins stratified by chorionicity and mode of conception: a retrospective cohort study in China

Establishing Chinese Fetal Growth Standards: Why and How

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

Comparing Fetal Ultrasound Biometric Measurements to Neonatal Anthropometry at the Extremes of Birthweight

Establishing Reference Intervals for Normal Fetal Lung Biological Parameters at 21–40 Weeks of Gestation in the Chinese Population: A Cross-Sectional Study