Incorporation of femur length leads to underestimation of fetal weight in asymmetric preterm growth restriction

Directive clinique no 442 : Retard de croissance intra-utérin : Dépistage, diagnostic et prise en charge en contexte de grossesse monofœtale

OBJECTIF

Le retard de croissance intra-utérin est une complication obstétricale fréquente qui touche jusqu'à 10 % des grossesses dans la population générale et qui est le plus souvent due à une pathologie placentaire sous-jacente. L'objectif de la présente directive clinique est de fournir des déclarations sommaires et des recommandations pour appuyer un protocole clinique de dépistage, diagnostic et prise en charge du retard de croissance intra-utérin pour les grossesses à risque ou atteintes.

POPULATION CIBLE

Toutes les patientes enceintes menant une grossesse monofœtale. BéNéFICES, RISQUES ET COûTS: La mise en application des recommandations de la présente directive devrait améliorer la compétence des cliniciens quant à la détection du retard de croissance intra-utérin et à la réalisation des interventions indiquées. DONNéES PROBANTES: La littérature publiée a été colligée par des recherches effectuées jusqu'en septembre 2022 dans les bases de données PubMed, Medline, CINAHL et Cochrane Library en utilisant un vocabulaire contrôlé au moyen de termes MeSH pertinents (fetal growth retardation and small for gestational age) et de mots-clés (fetal growth, restriction, growth retardation, IUGR, FGR, low birth weight, small for gestational age, Doppler, placenta, pathology). Seuls les résultats de revues systématiques, d'essais cliniques randomisés ou comparatifs et d'études observationnelles ont été retenus. La littérature grise a été obtenue par des recherches menées dans des sites Web d'organismes s'intéressant à l'évaluation des technologies dans le domaine de la santé et d'organismes connexes, dans des collections de directives cliniques, des registres d'essais cliniques et des sites Web de sociétés de spécialité médicale nationales et internationales. MéTHODES DE VALIDATION: Les auteurs ont évalué la qualité des données probantes et la force des recommandations en utilisant le cadre méthodologique GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Voir l'annexe A en ligne (tableau A1 pour les définitions et tableau A2 pour l'interprétation des recommandations fortes et conditionnelles [faibles]). PROFESSIONNELS CONCERNéS: Obstétriciens, médecins de famille, infirmières, sages-femmes, spécialistes en médecine fœto-maternelle, radiologistes et autres professionnels de la santé qui prodiguent des soins aux patientes enceintes. RéSUMé POUR TWITTER: Mise à jour de la directive sur le dépistage, le diagnostic et la prise en charge du retard de croissance intra-utérin pour les grossesses à risque ou atteintes. DÉCLARATIONS SOMMAIRES: RECOMMANDATIONS: Prédiction du retard de croissance intra-utérin Prévention du retard de croissance intra-utérin Détection du retard de croissance intra-utérin Examens en cas de retard de croissance intra-utérin soupçonné Prise en charge du retard de croissance intra-utérin précoce Prise en charge du retard de croissance intra-utérin tardif Prise en charge du post-partum et consultations préconception.

Guideline No. 442: Fetal Growth Restriction: Screening, Diagnosis, and Management in Singleton Pregnancies

OBJECTIVE

Fetal growth restriction is a common obstetrical complication that affects up to 10% of pregnancies in the general population and is most commonly due to underlying placental diseases. The purpose of this guideline is to provide summary statements and recommendations to support a clinical framework for effective screening, diagnosis, and management of pregnancies that are either at risk of or affected by fetal growth restriction.

TARGET POPULATION

All pregnant patients with a singleton pregnancy.

BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS

Implementation of the recommendations in this guideline should increase clinician competency to detect fetal growth restriction and provide appropriate interventions.

EVIDENCE

Published literature in English was retrieved through searches of PubMed or MEDLINE, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library through to September 2022 using appropriate controlled vocabulary via MeSH terms (fetal growth retardation and small for gestational age) and key words (fetal growth, restriction, growth retardation, IUGR, FGR, low birth weight, small for gestational age, Doppler, placenta, pathology). Results were restricted to systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials/controlled clinical trials, and observational studies. Grey literature was identified through searching the websites of health technology assessment and health technology-related agencies, clinical practice guideline collections, clinical trial registries, and national and international medical specialty societies.

VALIDATION METHODS

The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. See online Appendix A (Table A1 for definitions and Table A2 for interpretations of strong and conditional [weak] recommendations).

INTENDED AUDIENCE

Obstetricians, family physicians, nurses, midwives, maternal-fetal medicine specialists, radiologists, and other health care providers who care for pregnant patients.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Updated guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and management of pregnancies at risk of or affected by FGR.

SUMMARY STATEMENTS

RECOMMENDATIONS: Prediction of FGR Prevention of FGR Detection of FGR Investigations in Pregnancies with Suspected Fetal Growth Restriction Management of Early-Onset Fetal Growth Restriction Management of Late-Onset FGR Postpartum management and preconception counselling.

Prediction of Late-Onset Small for Gestational Age and Fetal Growth Restriction by Fetal Biometry at 35 Weeks and Impact of Ultrasound-Delivery Interval: Comparison of Six Fetal Growth Standards

Small-for-gestational-age (SGA) infants have been associated with increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes (APOs). In this work, we assess the predictive ability of the ultrasound-estimated percentile weight (EPW) at 35 weeks of gestational age to predict late-onset SGA and APOs, according to six growth standards, and whether the ultrasound–delivery interval influences the detection rate. To this purpose, we analyze a retrospective cohort study of 9585 singleton pregnancies. EPWs at 35 weeks were calculated to the customized Miguel Servet University Hospital (MSUH) and Figueras standards and the non-customized MSUH, Fetal Medicine Foundation (FMF), INTERGROWTH-21st, and WHO standards. As results of our analysis, for a 10% false positive rate, the detection rates for SGA ranged between 48.9% with the customized Figueras standard (AUC 0.82) and 60.8% with the non-customized FMF standard (AUC 0.87). Detection rates to predict SGA by ultrasound–delivery interval (1–6 weeks) show higher detection rates as intervals decrease. APOs detection rates ranged from 27.0% with FMF to 7.9% with the Figueras standard. In conclusion, the ability of EPW to predict SGA at 35 weeks is good for all standards, and slightly better for non-customized standards. The APO detection rate is significantly greater for non-customized standards.

Evaluating the accuracy and precision of sonographic fetal weight estimation models in extremely early-onset fetal growth restriction

INTRODUCTION

Birthweight is a critical predictor of survival in extremely early-onset fetal growth restriction (diagnosed pre-28 weeks' gestation, with abnormal umbilical/uterine artery Doppler waveforms), therefore accurate fetal weight estimation is a crucial component of antenatal management. Currently available sonographic fetal weight estimation models were predominantly developed in populations of mixed gestational age and varying fetal weights, but not specifically tested within the context of extremely early-onset fetal growth restriction. This study aimed to determine the accuracy and precision of fetal weight estimation in this population and investigate whether model performance is affected by other factors.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Cases where a growth scan was performed within 48 hours of delivery (n = 65) were identified from a cohort of extremely early-onset fetal growth-restricted pregnancies at a single tertiary maternity center (n = 159). Fetal biometry measurements were used to calculate estimated fetal weight using 21 previously published models. Systematic and random errors were calculated for each model and used to identify the best performing model, which in turn was used to explore the relationship between error and gestation, estimated fetal weight, fetal presentation, fetal asymmetry and amniotic fluid volume.

RESULTS

Both systematic (median 8.2%; range -44.1 to 49.5%) and random error (median 11.6%; range 9.7-23.8%) varied widely across models. The best performing model was Hadlock head circumference-abdominal circumference-femur length (HC-AC-FL), regardless of gestational age, fetal size, fetal presentation or asymmetry, with an overall systematic error of 1.5% and random error of 9.7%. Despite this, it only calculated the estimated fetal weight within 10% of birthweight in 64.6% of cases. There was a weak negative relation between mean percentage error with Hadlock HC-AC-FL and amniotic fluid volume, suggesting fetal weight is overestimated at lower liquor volumes and underestimated at higher liquor volumes (P = 0.002, adjusted R²  = 0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

Hadlock HC-AC-FL is the most accurate model currently available to estimate fetal weight in extremely early-onset fetal growth restriction independent of gestation or fetal size, asymmetry or presentation. However, for 35.4% of cases in this study, estimated fetal weight calculated using this model deviates by more than 10% from birthweight, highlighting a need for an improved model.

Comparison of the Hadlock and INTERGROWTH formulas for calculating estimated fetal weight in a preterm population in France

BACKGROUND

Accurate estimation of fetal weight is needed for growth monitoring and decision-making in obstetrics; the INTERGROWTH project developed an estimated fetal weight formula to construct new intrauterine growth standards.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to compare the accuracy of the Hadlock and INTERGROWTH formulas for the estimation of fetal weight among preterm infants.

STUDY DESIGN

Using the EPIPAGE 2 population-based study of births between 22-34 weeks of gestation, we included 578 nonanomalous singleton fetuses with an ultrasound-to-delivery interval <2 days. We used abdominal circumference, head circumference, and femur length to calculate estimated fetal weight with Hadlock formula and abdominal and head circumferences to calculate estimated fetal weight according to INTERGROWTH. The mean percentage errors and the proportions of estimated fetal weight measures within ±10% of birthweight were compared between the 2 methods.

RESULTS

Mean (SD) gestational age and birthweight were 29.1 (SD 2.7) weeks and 1219 (SD 489) g. Mean (SD) percentage errors for Hadlock and INTERGROWTH were significantly different: -0.7 (SD 10.1) and -3.5 (SD 11.6), respectively (P < .001), and more infants were classified within ±10% of their birthweight with Hadlock compared to INTERGROWTH (68.7% vs 57.8%, P < .001). The INTERGROWTH formula overestimated birthweight at 22-23 weeks compared to Hadlock [mean errors of 18.8 (SD 13.6) vs 5.5 (SD 10.2)] and underestimated birthweight >28 weeks: at 29-31 weeks, mean errors were -5.8 (SD 10.9) for INTERGROWTH and -0.6 (SD 10.4) for Hadlock.

CONCLUSION

Hadlock estimated fetal weight formula was more accurate than INTERGROWTH formula for fetuses delivered between 22-34 weeks of gestation. Our results support continued use of Hadlock formula in France and raise questions about the applicability of INTERGROWTH intrauterine growth standards.

Ultrasonographic estimation of fetal weight: development of new model and assessment of performance of previous models

OBJECTIVES

To develop a new formula for ultrasonographic estimation of fetal weight and evaluate the accuracy of this and all previous formulae in the prediction of birth weight.

METHODS

The study population consisted of 5163 singleton pregnancies with fetal biometry at 22-43 weeks' gestation and live birth of a phenotypically normal neonate within 2 days of the ultrasound examination. Multivariable fractional polynomial analysis was used to determine the combination of variables that provided the best-fitting models for estimated fetal weight (EFW). A systematic review was also carried out of articles reporting formulae for EFW and comparing EFW to actual birth weight. The accuracy of each model for EFW was assessed by comparing mean percentage error, absolute mean error (AE), proportion of pregnancies with AE ≤ 10% and Euclidean distance.

RESULTS

The most accurate models, with the lowest Euclidean distance and highest proportion of AE ≤ 10%, were provided by the formulae incorporating ≥ 3 rather than < 3 biometrical measurements. The systematic review identified 45 studies describing a total of 70 models for EFW by various combinations of measurements of fetal head circumference (HC), biparietal diameter, femur length (FL) and abdominal circumference (AC). The most accurate model with the lowest Euclidean distance and highest proportion of AE ≤ 10% was provided by the formula of Hadlock et al., published in 1985, which incorporated measurements of HC, AC and FL; there was a highly significant linear association between EFW and birth weight (r = 0.959; P < 0.0001), and EFW was within 10% of birth weight in 80% of cases. The performance of the best model developed in this study, utilizing HC, AC and FL, was very similar to that of Hadlock et al. CONCLUSION: Despite many efforts to develop new models for EFW, the one reported in 1985 by Hadlock et al., from measurements of HC, AC and FL, provides the most accurate prediction of birth weight and can be used for assessment of all babies, including those suspected to be either small or large. Copyright © 2018 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Screening for fetal growth restriction and placental insufficiency

Fetal growth restriction (FGR) continues to be a leading cause of preventable stillbirth and poor neurodevelopmental outcomes in offspring, and furthermore is strongly associated with the obstetrical complications of iatrogenic preterm birth and pre-eclampsia. The terms small for gestational age (SGA) and FGR have, for too long, been considered equivalent and therefore used interchangeably. However, the delivery of improved clinical outcomes requires that clinicians effectively distinguish fetuses that are pathologically growth-restricted from those that are constitutively small. A greater understanding of the multifactorial pathogenesis of both early- and late-onset FGR, especially the role of underlying placental pathologies, may offer insight into targeted treatment strategies that preserve placental function. The new maternal blood biomarker placenta growth factor offers much potential in this context. This review highlights new approaches to effective screening for FGR based on a comprehensive review of: etiology, diagnosis, antenatal surveillance and management. Recent advances in novel imaging methods provide the basis for stepwise multi-parametric testing that may deliver cost-effective screening within existing antenatal care systems.

A placenta clinic approach to the diagnosis and management of fetal growth restriction

Effective detection and management of fetal growth restriction is relevant to all obstetric care providers. Models of best practice to care for these patients and their families continue to evolve. Since much of the disease burden in fetal growth restriction originates in the placenta, the concept of a multidisciplinary placenta clinic program, managed primarily within a maternal-fetal medicine division, has gained popularity. In this context, fetal growth restriction is merely one of many placenta-related disorders that can benefit from an interdisciplinary approach, incorporating expertise from specialist perinatal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging, reproductive genetics, neonatal pediatrics, internal medicine subspecialties, perinatal pathology, and nursing. The accurate diagnosis and prognosis for women with fetal growth restriction is established by comprehensive clinical review and detailed sonographic evaluation of the fetus, combined with uterine artery Doppler and morphologic assessment of the placenta. Diagnostic accuracy for placenta-mediated fetal growth restriction may be enhanced by quantification of maternal serum biomarkers including placenta growth factor alone or combined with soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1. Uterine artery Doppler is typically abnormal in most instances of early-onset fetal growth restriction and is associated with coexistent preeclampsia and underlying maternal vascular malperfusion pathology of the placenta. By contrast, rare but potentially more serious underlying placental diagnoses, such as massive perivillous fibrinoid deposition, chronic histiocytic intervillositis, or fetal thrombotic vasculopathy, may be associated with normal uterine artery Doppler waveforms. Despite minor variations in placental size, shape, and cord insertion, placental function remains, largely normal in the general population. Consequently, morphologic assessment of the placenta is not currently incorporated into current screening programs for placental complications. However, placental ultrasound can be diagnostic in the context of fetal growth restriction, for example in Breus' mole and triploidy, which in turn may enhance diagnosis and management. Several examples are illustrated in our figures and supplementary videos. Recent advances in the ability of multiparameter screening and intervention programs to reduce the risk of severe preeclampsia will likely increase efforts to deliver similar improvements for women at risk of fetal growth restriction. Placental pathology is important because the underlying pathologies associated with fetal growth restriction have a wide range of recurrence risks. Rare conditions such as massive perivillous fibrinoid deposition or chronic histolytic intervillositis may recur in >50% of subsequent pregnancies. Postpartum care in a placenta-focused program can provide effective counseling for modifiable maternal risk factors, and can assist in planning future pregnancy care based on the pathologic basis of fetal growth restriction.

Fetal growth velocity and body proportion in the assessment of growth

Fetal growth restriction implies failure of a fetus to meet its growth potential and is associated with increased perinatal mortality and morbidity. Therefore, antenatal detection of fetal growth restriction is of major importance in an attempt to deliver improved clinical outcomes. The most commonly used approach towards screening for fetal growth restriction is by means of sonographic fetal weight estimation, to detect fetuses small for gestational age, defined by an estimated fetal weight <10th percentile for gestational age. However, the predictive accuracy of this approach is limited both by suboptimal detection rate (as it may overlook non-small-for-gestational-age growth-restricted fetuses) and by a high false-positive rate (as most small-for-gestational-age fetuses are not growth restricted). Here, we review 2 strategies that may improve the diagnostic accuracy of sonographic fetal biometry for fetal growth restriction. The first strategy involves serial ultrasound evaluations of fetal biometry. The information obtained through these serial assessments can be interpreted using several different approaches including fetal growth velocity, conditional percentiles, projection-based methods, and individualized growth assessment that can be viewed as mathematical techniques to quantify any decrease in estimated fetal weight percentile, a phenomenon that many care providers assess and monitor routinely in a qualitative manner. This strategy appears promising in high-risk pregnancies where it seems to improve the detection of growth-restricted fetuses at increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes and, at the same time, decrease the risk of falsely diagnosing healthy constitutionally small-for-gestational-age fetuses as growth restricted. Further studies are needed to determine the utility of this strategy in low-risk pregnancies as well as to optimize its performance by determining the optimal timing and interval between exams. The second strategy refers to the use of fetal body proportions to classify fetuses as either symmetric or asymmetric using 1 of several ratios; these include the head circumference to abdominal circumference ratio, transverse cerebellar diameter to abdominal circumference ratio, and femur length to abdominal circumference ratio. Although these ratios are associated with small for gestational age at birth and with adverse perinatal outcomes, their predictive accuracy is too low for clinical practice. Furthermore, these associations become questionable when other, potentially more specific measures such as umbilical artery Doppler are being used. Furthermore, these ratios are of limited use in determining the etiology underlying fetal smallness. It is possible that the use of the 2 gestational-age-independent ratios (transverse cerebellar diameter to abdominal circumference and femur length to abdominal circumference) may have a role in the detection of mild-moderate fetal growth restriction in pregnancies without adequate dating. In addition, despite their limited predictive accuracy, these ratios may become abnormal early in the course of fetal growth restriction and may therefore identify pregnancies that may benefit from closer monitoring of fetal growth.

International estimated fetal weight standards of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project

OBJECTIVE

Estimated fetal weight (EFW) and fetal biometry are complementary measures used to screen for fetal growth disturbances. Our aim was to provide international EFW standards to complement the INTERGROWTH-21st Fetal Growth Standards that are available for use worldwide.

METHODS

Women with an accurate gestational-age assessment, who were enrolled in the prospective, international, multicenter, population-based Fetal Growth Longitudinal Study (FGLS) and INTERBIO-21st Fetal Study (FS), two components of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project, had ultrasound scans every 5 weeks from 9-14 weeks' until 40 weeks' gestation. At each visit, measurements of fetal head circumference (HC), biparietal diameter, occipitofrontal diameter, abdominal circumference (AC) and femur length (FL) were obtained blindly by dedicated research sonographers using standardized methods and identical ultrasound machines. Birth weight was measured within 12 h of delivery by dedicated research anthropometrists using standardized methods and identical electronic scales. Live babies without any congenital abnormality, who were born within 14 days of the last ultrasound scan, were selected for inclusion. As most births occurred at around 40 weeks' gestation, we constructed a bootstrap model selection and estimation procedure based on resampling of the complete dataset under an approximately uniform distribution of birth weight, thus enriching the sample size at extremes of fetal sizes, to achieve consistent estimates across the full range of fetal weight. We constructed reference centiles using second-degree fractional polynomial models.

RESULTS

Of the overall population, 2404 babies were born within 14 days of the last ultrasound scan. Mean time between the last scan and birth was 7.7 (range, 0-14) days and was uniformly distributed. Birth weight was best estimated as a function of AC and HC (without FL) as log(EFW) = 5.084820 - 54.06633 × (AC/100)3  - 95.80076 × (AC/100)3  × log(AC/100) + 3.136370 × (HC/100), where EFW is in g and AC and HC are in cm. All other measures, gestational age, symphysis-fundus height, amniotic fluid indices and interactions between biometric measures and gestational age, were not retained in the selection process because they did not improve the prediction of EFW. Applying the formula to FGLS biometric data (n = 4231) enabled gestational age-specific EFW tables to be constructed. At term, the EFW centiles matched those of the INTERGROWTH-21st Newborn Size Standards but, at < 37 weeks' gestation, the EFW centiles were, as expected, higher than those of babies born preterm. Comparing EFW cross-sectional values with the INTERGROWTH-21st Preterm Postnatal Growth Standards confirmed that preterm postnatal growth is a different biological process from intrauterine growth.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide an assessment of EFW, as an adjunct to routine ultrasound biometry, from 22 to 40 weeks' gestation. However, we strongly encourage clinicians to evaluate fetal growth using separate biometric measures such as HC and AC, as well as EFW, to avoid the minimalist approach of focusing on a single value. © 2016 Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

A New Sonographic Weight Estimation Formula for Small-for-Gestational-Age Fetuses

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to develop a new specific weight estimation formula for small-for-gestational-age (SGA) fetuses that differentiated between symmetric and asymmetric growth patterns.

METHODS

A statistical estimation technique known as component-wise gradient boosting was applied to a group of 898 SGA fetuses (symmetric, n = 750; asymmetric, n = 148). A new formula was derived from the data obtained and was then compared to other commonly used equations.

RESULTS

The new formula derived is as follows: estimated fetal weight = e^[1.3734627 + 0.0057133 × biparietal diameter + 0.0011282 × head circumference + 0.0201147 × abdominal circumference + 0.0183081 × femur length - 0.0000177 × biparietal diameter(2) - 0.0000018 × head circumference(2) - 0.0000297 × abdominal circumference(2) -0.0001007 × femur length(2) + 0.0397563 × I(sex = male) + 0.0064505 × gestational age (days) + 0.0096528 × I(SGA = asymmetric)], where the function I denotes an indicator function, which is 1 if the expression is fulfilled (sex = male; SGA type = asymmetric) and otherwise 0. In the whole study group and the 2 subgroups, the new formula showed the lowest median absolute percentage error, mean percentage error, and random error and the best distribution of absolute percentage errors within prespecified error bounds.

CONCLUSIONS

The new formula substantially improves weight estimation in SGA fetuses.

Choice of Formula and Accuracy of Fetal Weight Estimation in Small-for-Gestational-Age Fetuses

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to identify the most accurate sonographic models for fetal weight estimation in specific subgroups of small-for-gestational-age (SGA) fetuses.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of women who delivered an SGA neonate and underwent a sonographic estimation of fetal weight within 7 days of delivery in a single tertiary center (n = 370). The accuracy of fetal weight estimation was compared for 33 sonographic models (27 nontargeted and 6 targeted SGA- or low-birth-weight-specific models) in specific subgroups of SGA fetuses: early versus late SGA, asymmetric versus symmetric, and presence of Doppler abnormalities.

RESULTS

A wide variation in the accuracy of the different models was found (systematic error, -12.5% to 15.1%; random error, 7.8% to 15.5%). Most nontargeted models tended to systematically overestimate the weight of SGA fetuses. The best performing model in the overall SGA group was the targeted model of Scott et al (J Ultrasound Med 1996; 15:669-672; systematic error ± random error, -2.8% ± 8.3%). However, the optimal models varied for different subgroups of SGA fetuses, and in most cases the targeted models were the most accurate. An approach that used the optimal model for each subgroup of SGA fetuses compared with the uniform use of the model of Scott et al for all SGA fetuses was associated with a lower systematic error (-0.38% versus -2.8%; P < .001) and a higher proportion of weight estimations within 5%, 10%, and 15% of birth weight (48.4% versus 40.8%; P= .038; 78.6% versus 71.4%; P= .022; 95.1% versus 89.2%; P = .003, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Sonographic models in current use for fetal weight estimation in SGA fetuses have significant errors, and their performance varies for specific subgroups of SGA fetuses. An approach that uses subgroup-specific models may improve the accuracy of weight estimation among SGA fetuses.

Factors influencing the accuracy of fetal weight estimation with a focus on preterm birth at the limit of viability: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Fetal weight estimation (FWE) is an important factor for clinical management decisions, especially in imminent preterm birth at the limit of viability between 23(0/7) and 26(0/7) weeks of gestation. It is crucial to detect and eliminate factors that have a negative impact on the accuracy of FWE.

DATA SOURCES

In this systematic literature review, we investigated 14 factors that may influence the accuracy of FWE, in particular in preterm neonates born at the limit of viability.

RESULTS

We found that gestational age, maternal body mass index, amniotic fluid index and ruptured membranes, presentation of the fetus, location of the placenta and the presence of multiple fetuses do not seem to have an impact on FWE accuracy. The influence of the examiner's grade of experience and that of fetal gender were discussed controversially. Fetal weight, time interval between estimation and delivery and the use of different formulas seem to have an evident effect on FWE accuracy. No results were obtained on the impact of active labor.

DISCUSSION

This review reveals that only few studies investigated factors possibly influencing the accuracy of FWE in preterm neonates at the limit of viability. Further research in this specific age group on potential confounding factors is needed.

Fetal growth: a review of terms, concepts and issues relevant to obstetrics

The perinatal literature includes several potentially confusing and controversial terms and concepts related to fetal size and growth. This article discusses fetal growth from an obstetric perspective and addresses various issues including the physiologic mechanisms that determine fetal growth trajectories, known risk factors for abnormal fetal growth, diagnostic and prognostic issues related to restricted and excessive growth and temporal trends in fetal growth. Also addressed are distinctions between fetal growth 'standards' and fetal growth 'references', and between fetal growth charts based on estimated fetal weight vs those based on birth weight. Other concepts discussed include the incidence of fetal growth restriction in pregnancy (does the frequency of fetal growth restriction increase or decrease with increasing gestation?), the obstetric implications of studies showing associations between fetal growth and adult chronic illnesses (such as coronary heart disease) and the need for customizing fetal growth standards.