Outcome‐based comparison of SMFM and ISUOG definitions of fetal growth restriction
ABSTRACT Objective The recent international guidelines by the Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine (SMFM) and the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG) differ in their definitions of fetal growth restriction (FGR). Our aim was to compare the performance of the two d...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology 2021-06, Vol.57 (6), p.925-930 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | ABSTRACT
Objective
The recent international guidelines by the Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine (SMFM) and the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG) differ in their definitions of fetal growth restriction (FGR). Our aim was to compare the performance of the two definitions in predicting neonatal small‐for‐gestational age (SGA) and composite adverse neonatal outcome (ANO).
Methods
This was a secondary analysis of data from a prospective study of women referred for fetal growth ultrasound examination between 26 + 0 and 36 + 6 weeks' gestation. The SMFM and ISUOG guidelines were used to define pregnancies with FGR. The SMFM definition of FGR is estimated fetal weight (EFW) or abdominal circumference (AC) |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0960-7692 1469-0705 |
DOI: | 10.1002/uog.23638 |