open access

Vol 90, No 12 (2019)
REVIEW PAPERS Obstetrics
Published online: 2019-12-31
Get Citation

Growth charts and prediction of abnormal growth — what is known, what is not known and what is misunderstood

Anna Kajdy, Jan Modzelewski, Krzysztof Herman, Katarzyna Muzyka-Placzynska, Michal Rabijewski
DOI: 10.5603/GP.2019.0123
·
Pubmed: 31909466
·
Ginekol Pol 2019;90(12):717-721.

open access

Vol 90, No 12 (2019)
REVIEW PAPERS Obstetrics
Published online: 2019-12-31

Abstract

Objectives: Assessment of fetal growth has an important effect on perinatal morbidity and mortality. To understand what tool to choose best for a given population a basic knowledge of how growth charts are developed and used has to be acquired. For this reason, this literature review was performed. Material and methods: An extensive literature review aimed at identifying articles related to the development of growth assessment in both spectrums of abnormal fetal growth — large and small. The analyzed articles were chosen and presented to show both the historical aspects of growth assessment, current trends and future considerations. Results: Identification of both large and small fetuses and neonates is equally crucial. Definitions and methodology vary worldwide and there is an ongoing discussion on the best tool to choose for a given population. An important part of the debate is how to differentiate between the physiologically small fetus and the truly growth restricted fetus who is at risk of perinatal complication. Similarly, the diagnosis of a large fetus is important in prevention of perinatal complications and surgical deliveries. Many clinical settings still lack growth standards. Conclusions: Birthweight for gestational age charts are biased for weight in preterm birth. Prediction and management of outcome cannot be based solely on fetal size. Small is not the only problem, we have to think large as well. A common misunderstanding in clinical practice is not using uniform charts in defining growth.

Abstract

Objectives: Assessment of fetal growth has an important effect on perinatal morbidity and mortality. To understand what tool to choose best for a given population a basic knowledge of how growth charts are developed and used has to be acquired. For this reason, this literature review was performed. Material and methods: An extensive literature review aimed at identifying articles related to the development of growth assessment in both spectrums of abnormal fetal growth — large and small. The analyzed articles were chosen and presented to show both the historical aspects of growth assessment, current trends and future considerations. Results: Identification of both large and small fetuses and neonates is equally crucial. Definitions and methodology vary worldwide and there is an ongoing discussion on the best tool to choose for a given population. An important part of the debate is how to differentiate between the physiologically small fetus and the truly growth restricted fetus who is at risk of perinatal complication. Similarly, the diagnosis of a large fetus is important in prevention of perinatal complications and surgical deliveries. Many clinical settings still lack growth standards. Conclusions: Birthweight for gestational age charts are biased for weight in preterm birth. Prediction and management of outcome cannot be based solely on fetal size. Small is not the only problem, we have to think large as well. A common misunderstanding in clinical practice is not using uniform charts in defining growth.

Get Citation

Keywords

growth charts; small for gestational age; large for gestational age; appropriate for gestational age; growth standard; growth reference

About this article
Title

Growth charts and prediction of abnormal growth — what is known, what is not known and what is misunderstood

Journal

Ginekologia Polska

Issue

Vol 90, No 12 (2019)

Pages

717-721

Published online

2019-12-31

DOI

10.5603/GP.2019.0123

Pubmed

31909466

Bibliographic record

Ginekol Pol 2019;90(12):717-721.

Keywords

growth charts
small for gestational age
large for gestational age
appropriate for gestational age
growth standard
growth reference

Authors

Anna Kajdy
Jan Modzelewski
Krzysztof Herman
Katarzyna Muzyka-Placzynska
Michal Rabijewski

References (35)
  1. McCowan LM, Figueras F, Anderson NH. Evidence-based national guidelines for the management of suspected fetal growth restriction: comparison, consensus, and controversy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 218(2S): S855–S868.
  2. Gardosi J, Francis A, Turner S, et al. Customized growth charts: rationale, validation and clinical benefits. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 218(2S): S609–S618.
  3. World Health Organization. Expert group on Prematurity: final report. Technical Report Series, no. 27. Geneva, 17–21 April 1950. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/38549/WHO_TRS_27_eng.pdf.
  4. Battaglia FC, Lubchenco LO. A practical classification of newborn infants by weight and gestational age. J Pediatr. 1967; 71(2): 159–163.
  5. Yerushalmy J. The classification of newborn infants by birth weight and gestational age. J Pediatr. 1967; 71(2): 164–172.
  6. Romero R, Tarca AL. Fetal size standards to diagnose a small- or a large-for-gestational-age fetus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 218(2S): S605–S607.
  7. Boulet SL, Alexander GR, Salihu HM, et al. Fetal growth risk curves: defining levels of fetal growth restriction by neonatal death risk. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 195(6): 1571–1577.
  8. Joseph KS, Fahey J, Platt RW, et al. An outcome-based approach for the creation of fetal growth standards: do singletons and twins need separate standards? Am J Epidemiol. 2009; 169(5): 616–624.
  9. Wehbe M, Charafeddine L, Yunis K. Intrauterine Growth Standards. Handbook of Growth and Growth Monitoring in Health and Disease. 2011: 93–114.
  10. Hutcheon JA, Egeland GM, Morin L, et al. The predictive ability of conditional fetal growth percentiles. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2010; 24(2): 131–139.
  11. Kiserud T, Piaggio G, Carroli G, et al. The World Health Organization Fetal Growth Charts: A Multinational Longitudinal Study of Ultrasound Biometric Measurements and Estimated Fetal Weight. PLoS Med. 2017; 14(1): e1002220.
  12. Garza C. The INTERGROWTH-21st project and the multicenter growth reference study: enhanced opportunities for monitoring growth from early pregnancy to 5 years of age. Breastfeed Med. 2014; 9(7): 341–344.
  13. Fenton TR, Kim JH. A systematic review and meta-analysis to revise the Fenton growth chart for preterm infants. BMC Pediatr. 2013; 13: 59.
  14. Yudkin PL, Aboualfa M, Eyre JA, et al. New birthweight and head circumference centiles for gestational ages 24 to 42 weeks. Early Hum Dev. 1987; 15(1): 45–52.
  15. Weiner CP, Sabbagha RE, Vaisrub N, et al. A hypothetical model suggesting suboptimal intrauterine growth in infants delivered preterm. Obstet Gynecol. 1985; 65(3): 323–326.
  16. Secher NJ, Kern Hansen P, Thomsen BL, et al. Growth retardation in preterm infants. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1987; 94(2): 115–120.
  17. Ott WJ. Intrauterine growth retardation and preterm delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993; 168(6 Pt 1): 1710–1717.
  18. Morken NH, Källen K, Jacobsson Bo. Fetal growth and onset of delivery: a nationwide population-based study of preterm infants. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 195(1): 154–161.
  19. Nicolaides KH, Wright D, Syngelaki A, et al. Fetal Medicine Foundation fetal and neonatal population weight charts. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 52(1): 44–51.
  20. Mikolajczyk RT, Zhang J, Betran AP, et al. A global reference for fetal-weight and birthweight percentiles. Lancet. 2011; 377(9780): 1855–1861.
  21. Gardosi J, Mongelli M, Wilcox M, et al. An adjustable fetal weight standard. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1995; 6(3): 168–174.
  22. Ego A, Subtil D, Grange G, et al. Customized versus population-based birth weight standards for identifying growth restricted infants: a French multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 194(4): 1042–1049.
  23. Odibo AO, Nwabuobi C, Odibo L, et al. Customized fetal growth standard compared with the INTERGROWTH-21st century standard at predicting small-for-gestational-age neonates. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018; 97(11): 1381–1387.
  24. Anderson NH, Sadler LC, McKinlay CJD, et al. INTERGROWTH-21st vs customized birthweight standards for identification of perinatal mortality and morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 214(4): 509.e1–509.e7.
  25. Carberry AE, Gordon A, Bond DM, et al. Customised versus population-based growth charts as a screening tool for detecting small for gestational age infants in low-risk pregnant women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014(5): CD008549.
  26. Bukowski R, Hansen NI, Willinger M, et al. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Stillbirth Collaborative Research Network. Fetal growth and risk of stillbirth: a population-based case-control study. PLoS Med. 2014; 11(4): e1001633.
  27. Chiossi G, Pedroza C, Costantine MM, et al. Customized vs population-based growth charts to identify neonates at risk of adverse outcome: systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis of observational studies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 50(2): 156–166.
  28. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics. Practice Bulletin No. 173: Fetal Macrosomia. Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 128(5): e195–e209.
  29. Beta J, Khan N, Khalil A, et al. Maternal and neonatal complications of fetal macrosomia: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 54(3): 308–318.
  30. Caradeux J, Eixarch E, Mazarico E, et al. Second- to Third-Trimester Longitudinal Growth Assessment for the Prediction of Largeness for Gestational Age and Macrosomia in an Unselected Population. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2018; 43(4): 284–290.
  31. Usher R, McLean F. Intrauterine growth of live-born Caucasian infants at sea level: standards obtained from measurements in 7 dimensions of infants born between 25 and 44 weeks of gestation. J Pediatr. 1969; 74(6): 901–910.
  32. Carberry AE, Gordon A, Bond DM, et al. Customised versus population-based growth charts as a screening tool for detecting small for gestational age infants in low-risk pregnant women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014(5): CD008549.
  33. Sjaarda LA, Albert PS, Mumford SL, et al. Customized large-for-gestational-age birthweight at term and the association with adverse perinatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 210(1): 63.e1–63.e11.
  34. Gordijn SJ, Beune IM, Thilaganathan B, et al. Consensus definition of fetal growth restriction: a Delphi procedure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 48(3): 333–339.
  35. Pritchard N, Lindquist A, Hiscock R, et al. Customised growth charts in large-for-gestational-age infants and the association with emergency caesarean section rate. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019; 59(3): 380–386.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl