growth charts Archives - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
, , , , , Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2021;43(1):20-27
, , , , , To analyze the agreement, in relation to the 90th percentile, of ultrasound measurements of abdominal circumference (AC) and estimated fetal weight (EFW), between the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st Century (intergrowth-21st) tables, as well as regarding birth weight in fetuses/newborns of diabetic mothers.
Retrospective study with data from medical records of 171 diabetic pregnant women, single pregnancies, followed between January 2017 and June 2018. Abdominal circumference and EFW data at admission (from 22 weeks) and predelivery (up to 3 weeks) were analyzed. These measures were classified in relation to the 90th percentile. The Kappa coefficient was used to analyze the agreement of these ultrasound variables between the WHO and intergrowth-21st tables, as well as, by reference table, these measurements and birth weight.
The WHO study reported 21.6% large-for-gestational-age (LGA) newborns while the intergrowth-21st reported 32.2%. Both tables had strong concordances in the assessment of initial AC, final AC, and initial EFW (Kappa = 0.66, 0.72 and 0.63, respectively) and almost perfect concordance in relation to final EFW (Kappa = 0.91). Regarding birth weight, the best concordances were found for initial AC (WHO: Kappa = 0.35; intergrowth-21st: Kappa= 0.42) and with the final EFW (WHO: Kappa = 0.33; intergrowth- 21st: Kappa = 0.35).
The initial AC and final EFW were the parameters of best agreement regarding birth weight classification. The WHO and intergrowth-21st tables showed high agreement in the classification of ultrasound measurements in relation to the 90th
Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2021;43(1):20-27
, , , , , To analyze the agreement, in relation to the 90th percentile, of ultrasound measurements of abdominal circumference (AC) and estimated fetal weight (EFW), between the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st Century (intergrowth-21st) tables, as well as regarding birth weight in fetuses/newborns of diabetic mothers.
Retrospective study with data from medical records of 171 diabetic pregnant women, single pregnancies, followed between January 2017 and June 2018. Abdominal circumference and EFW data at admission (from 22 weeks) and predelivery (up to 3 weeks) were analyzed. These measures were classified in relation to the 90th percentile. The Kappa coefficient was used to analyze the agreement of these ultrasound variables between the WHO and intergrowth-21st tables, as well as, by reference table, these measurements and birth weight.
The WHO study reported 21.6% large-for-gestational-age (LGA) newborns while the intergrowth-21st reported 32.2%. Both tables had strong concordances in the assessment of initial AC, final AC, and initial EFW (Kappa = 0.66, 0.72 and 0.63, respectively) and almost perfect concordance in relation to final EFW (Kappa = 0.91). Regarding birth weight, the best concordances were found for initial AC (WHO: Kappa = 0.35; intergrowth-21st: Kappa= 0.42) and with the final EFW (WHO: Kappa = 0.33; intergrowth- 21st: Kappa = 0.35).
The initial AC and final EFW were the parameters of best agreement regarding birth weight classification. The WHO and intergrowth-21st tables showed high agreement in the classification of ultrasound measurements in relation to the 90th
, , , , , Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2020;42(4):174-180
, , , , , , , , To develop reference curves of estimated fetal weight for a local population in Curitiba, South of Brazil, and compare them with the curves established for other populations.
An observational, cross-sectional, retrospective study was conducted. A reference model for estimated fetal weight was developed using a local sample of 2,211 singleton pregnancies with low risk of growth disorders and well-defined gestational age. This model was compared graphically with the Hadlock and Intergrowth 21st curves.
Reference curves for estimated fetal weight were developed for a local population. The coefficient of determination was R2 = 99.11%, indicating that 99.11% of the fetal weight variations were explained by the model. Compared with Hadlock curves, the 50th, 90th, and 97th percentiles in this model were lower, whereas the 10th percentile nearly overlapped, and the 3rd percentile was slightly higher in the proposed model. The percentiles were higher in the proposed model compared with the Intergrowth 21st curves, particularly for the 3rd, 10th, and 50th percentiles.
We provide a local reference curve for estimated fetal weight. The proposed model was different from other models, and these differences might be due to the use of different populations for model construction.
Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2020;42(4):174-180
, , , , , , , , To develop reference curves of estimated fetal weight for a local population in Curitiba, South of Brazil, and compare them with the curves established for other populations.
An observational, cross-sectional, retrospective study was conducted. A reference model for estimated fetal weight was developed using a local sample of 2,211 singleton pregnancies with low risk of growth disorders and well-defined gestational age. This model was compared graphically with the Hadlock and Intergrowth 21st curves.
Reference curves for estimated fetal weight were developed for a local population. The coefficient of determination was R2 = 99.11%, indicating that 99.11% of the fetal weight variations were explained by the model. Compared with Hadlock curves, the 50th, 90th, and 97th percentiles in this model were lower, whereas the 10th percentile nearly overlapped, and the 3rd percentile was slightly higher in the proposed model. The percentiles were higher in the proposed model compared with the Intergrowth 21st curves, particularly for the 3rd, 10th, and 50th percentiles.
We provide a local reference curve for estimated fetal weight. The proposed model was different from other models, and these differences might be due to the use of different populations for model construction.
