ABSTRACT
Objective
To compare the accuracy of INTERGROWTH-21 (IG-21) versus Hadlock1 formulae for birth
weight prediction on third-trimester ultrasound in a North American population.
Methods
This single-centre retrospective cohort study included all pregnant patients who had
a third-trimester ultrasound between 340 and 366 weeks gestation and delivered a term singleton at our maternal–fetal medicine reference
centre between April 1 and July 30, 2019. Estimated ultrasound fetal weight was calculated
with both Hadlock1 and IG-21 formulae for each fetus, then reported on a centile curve
to adjust for gestational age at delivery, and compared with the actual birth weight.
Results
The cohort included 600 women. The IG-21 formula had a comparable accuracy to Hadlock1
with mean absolute percentage errors (MAPEs) of 8.64 and 8.86, respectively (P = 0.191). Success rate, defined by a <10% discrepancy range of the actual birth weight,
was significantly higher for IG-21 than for Hadlock1 (67.5% vs. 64.3%; P = 0.044).
Conclusion
Our results do not support the superiority of IG-21 to Hadlock1. There is a need for
continued research to improve birth weight prediction with the ultimate objective
of increasing the detection of small for gestation age and macrosomic fetuses.
RÉSUMÉ
Objectif
Comparer l'exactitude de prédiction échographique du poids à la naissance de la formule INTERGROWTH-21
(IG-21) et de la formule de Hadlock 1 au troisième trimestre dans une population nord-américaine.
Méthodologie
Cette étude rétrospective de cohorte monocentrique inclut toutes les patientes enceintes
ayant subi une échographie du troisième trimestre entre 34 SA + 0 j et 36 SA + 6 j
et accouché à terme d'une grossesse monofœtale dans notre centre de référence en médecine
fœto-maternelle entre le 1er avril et le 30 juillet 2019. Le poids fœtal a été estimé à l’échographie au moyen
des formules de Hadlock 1 et IG-21 pour chaque fœtus. Le poids a ensuite été reporté
sur une courbe de centiles pour ajuster en fonction de l’âge gestationnel à l'accouchement,
puis ce poids ajusté a été comparé au poids réel à la naissance.
Résultats
La cohorte comptait 600 femmes. La formule IG-21 avait une précision comparable à
celle de la formule Hadlock 1 avec un pourcentage d'erreur absolu moyen de 8,64 et
8,86, respectivement (p = 0,191). Le taux de réussite, défini par un écart de moins de 10 % du poids réel
à la naissance, était significativement plus élevé avec la formule IG-21 comparativement
à la formule de Hadlock 1 (67,5 % vs 64,3 %; p = 0,044).
Conclusion
Nos résultats n'appuient pas la supériorité de la formule IG-21 par rapport à la formule
de Hadlock 1. Il est nécessaire de poursuivre les recherches afin d'améliorer la prédiction
du poids à la naissance dans l'objectif ultime d'augmenter la détection de l'hypotrophie
et de la macrosomie fœtales.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology CanadaAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
REFERENCES
- Major risk factors for stillbirth in high-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Lancet. 2011; 377: 1331-1340
- Doppler ultrasound for fetal assessment in high risk pregnancies.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000; 2CD000073
- The long-term outcome of retarded fetal growth.Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1997; 40: 853-863
- Ultrasonographic prediction of term birth weight: how accurate is it?.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 188: 566-574
- Accuracy of sonographic fetal weight estimation in full-term singleton pregnant women.Pak J Med Sci. 2019; 35: 34-38
- International estimated fetal weight standards of the INTERGROWTH-21st project.Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 49: 478-486
- Fetal growth standards: the NICHD fetal growth study approach in context with INTERGROWTH-21st and the World Health Organization Multicentre Growth Reference Study.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 218 (S641–55.e28)
- Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements–a prospective study.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985; 151: 333-337
- Comparison of the accuracy of INTERGROWTH-21 formula with other ultrasound formulae in fetal weight estimation.Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 58: 273-277
- Comparison of the Hadlock and INTERGROWTH formulas for calculating estimated fetal weight in a preterm population in France.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 219 (476.e1–12)
- The Hadlock method is superior to newer methods for the prediction of the birth weight percentile.J Ultrasound Med. 2019; 38: 587-596
- Practice guidelines for performance of the routine mid-trimester fetal ultrasound scan.Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 37: 116-126
- Performance of 36 different weight estimation formulae in fetuses with macrosomia.Fetal Diagn Ther. 2010; 27: 204-213
- Does the level of amniotic fluid have an effect on the accuracy of sonographic estimated fetal weight at term?.J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015; 28: 638-642
- Influence of ultrasound-to-delivery interval and maternal-fetal characteristics on validity of estimated fetal weight.Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 35: 434-441
- Accuracy of sonographic fetal weight estimation within 14 days of delivery in a Jordanian population using Hadlock formula 1.Med Princ Pract. 2012; 21: 366-369
- Routine third trimester ultrasound: what is the evidence?.J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2008; 30: 118-122
- Diagnostic performance of routine ultrasound screening for fetal abnormalities in an unselected Swedish population in 2000-2005.Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 34: 526-533
- Value of routine ultrasound examination at 35-37 weeks' gestation in diagnosis of fetal abnormalities.Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020; 55: 75-80
Article info
Publication history
Published online: March 30, 2021
Footnotes
Disclosures: The authors declare they have nothing to disclose.
All authors have indicated they meet the journal's requirements for authorship.
Identification
Copyright
© 2021 The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada/La Société des obstétriciens et gynécologues du Canada. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
