Customised antenatal growth charts

Charts for fetal growth do not take physiological variables into account. We have therefore designed a computer-generated antenatal chart that can be easily "customised" for each individual pregnancy, taking the mother's characteristics and birthweights from previous pregnancies into consideration. The adjusted birthweight range expected at 40 weeks' gestation is combined with a standard, longitudinal ultrasound-derived curve for intrauterine weight gain. Review at the Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK, of 4179 pregnancies with ultrasound-confirmed dates showed that, in addition to gestation and sex, maternal weight at first antenatal-clinic visit, height, ethnic group, and parity were significant determinants of birthweight in our population. Correction factors were calculated for each of these variables and entered into a computer program to adjust the normal birthweight centile limits. With adjusted centiles we found that 28% of babies conventionally designated small for gestational age (less than 10th centile) and 22% of those designated large (greater than 90th centile) were in fact within normal limits for the pregnancy. Conversely, 24% and 26% of babies identified as small or large, respectively, with adjusted centiles were "missed" by conventional unadjusted centile assessment. Adjustment for physiological variables will make assessment of fetal growth more precise and reduce unnecessary investigations, interventions, and parental anxiety.

[1]  P. Yudkin,et al.  High birthweight in an ethnic group of low socioeconomic status , 1983, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[2]  F. P. Hadlock,et al.  Fetal head and abdominal circumferences: II. A critical re‐evaluation of the relationship to menstrual age , 1982, Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU.

[3]  D. Edelman,et al.  A standard of fetal growth for the United States of America. , 1976, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[4]  P. Steer,et al.  Is obstetric and neonatal outcome worse in fetuses who fail to reach their own growth potential? , 1992, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[5]  P. Persson Fetal growth curves , 1989 .

[6]  J. Studd,et al.  Obstetric characteristics in different racial groups , 1983, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[7]  R. Sabbagha,et al.  Sonar biparietal diameter. I. Analysis of percentile growth differences in two normal populations using same methodology. , 1976, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[8]  P. O'Brien,et al.  Evaluation of three methods for estimating fetal weight , 1986, Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU.

[9]  M. Mathai,et al.  Screening for light‐for‐gestational age infants: a comparison of three simple measurements , 1987, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[10]  W. Billewicz,et al.  THE ASSESSMENT OF FETAL GROWTH , 1968, The Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of the British Commonwealth.

[11]  T. Chard,et al.  Determination of biparietal diameter in the second trimester as a predictor of intrauterine growth retardation , 1983, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[12]  A. Haines,et al.  Factors affecting birthweights in Hindus, Moslems and Europeans , 1984, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[13]  R. Golder,et al.  Birthweight by gestational age and its effect on perinatal mortality in white and in Punjabi births: experience at a district general hospital in West London 1967–1975 , 1982, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[14]  S. Campbell,et al.  ULTRASONIC MEASUREMENT OF FETAL ABDOMEN CIRCUMFERENCE IN THE ESTIMATION OF FETAL WEIGHT , 1975, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[15]  S. L. Barron Birthweight and ethnicity , 1983, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[16]  E. Coles,et al.  NOMOGRAMS FOR PRECISE DETERMINATION OF BIRTH WEIGHT FOR DATES , 1980, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[17]  E. Alberman Are our Babies Becoming Bigger? , 1991, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[18]  B. Thomsen,et al.  Growth retardation in preterm infants , 1987, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[19]  R. Deter,et al.  Development of individual growth curve standards for estimated fetal weight: I. Weight estimation procedure , 1988, Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU.

[20]  S. Campbell,et al.  A comparison of symphysis‐fundal height and ultrasound as screening tests for light‐for‐gestational age infants , 1987, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[21]  L. Dubowitz,et al.  ASSESSMENT OF GESTATION BY ULTRASOUND IN VARIOUS STAGES OF PREGNANCY IN INFANTS DIFFERING IN SIZE AND ETHNIC ORIGIN , 1981, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[22]  D. Altman,et al.  Intrauterine growth retardation: Let's be clear about it , 1989, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[23]  P. Steer Intrapartum monitoring in IUGR , 1989 .

[24]  A. Wilcox Birth weight, gestation, and the fetal growth curve. , 1981, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[25]  G. Newman,et al.  BIRTH WEIGHT STANDARDSINA COMMUNITY OF MIXED RACIAL ORIGIN , 1978, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[26]  P. Steer,et al.  Outcome of pregnancy in underweight women after spontaneous and induced ovulation , 1988, British medical journal.

[27]  Why are neonatal mortality rates lower in small black infants than in white infants in similar birth weight? , 1977, The Journal of pediatrics.

[28]  J. Newton,et al.  Assessment of gestational age of the Asian fetus by the sonar measurement of crown‐rump length and biparietal diameter , 1982, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[29]  H. Meire,et al.  ULTRASOUND DEMONSTRATION OF AN UNUSUAL FETAL GROWTH PATTERN IN INDIANS , 1981, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[30]  R. Deter,et al.  Development of individual growth standards for estimated fetal weight: II. Weight prediction during the third trimester and at birth , 1989, Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU.