American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Original ResearchObstetricsCustomized vs INTERGROWTH-21st standards for the assessment of birthweight and stillbirth risk at term
Introduction
Fetal growth restriction and low birthweight are closely linked to risk of stillbirth and other indicators of adverse perinatal outcome. As these associations have become ever clearer, the focus has shifted to prevention, which requires adequate tools and standards.
Many reference curves and tables have been produced in various settings for the assessment of fetal growth and birthweight. They can vary because of the methods used, the quality of the data they originated from, and whether they were based on longitudinal or cross-sectional, fetal, or neonatal data. They also vary with the physiological and pathological characteristics of the population. Therefore, an approach that has gained traction in recent years is not to base reference curves on the whole population, but to set a standard that seeks to represent the optimal growth and birthweight that can be achieved in the absence of any complications, and that therefore should be better able to detect abnormalities in fetal growth.
Such a standard has been developed as the computer-generated customized GROW chart, which uses coefficients derived from large birthweight databases to predict optimal growth for each mother in each pregnancy.1, 2 Physiological variables such as ethnic origin, maternal size, and parity are adjusted for, and the standard is set at a level that is free from pathology, so that the effect adverse influences such as smoking, hypertension, or diabetes, are better recognized. Because the construction of the standard combines a term optimal weight (TOW) with a proportionality fetal weight curve for all gestations, the same chart can be used for the assessment of fetal growth as well as birthweight. Customized charts have been shown to be internationally applicable,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 are recommended by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,9 and are now increasingly in clinical and international research use. The GROW (Gestation Related Optimal Weight) application has recently been updated with additional coefficients to represent over 100 ethnic or country-of-origin groups.
An alternative approach to derive a standard is that taken by the INTERGROWTH-21st (IG21) project, which selected low-risk, well-nourished mothers with uncomplicated pregnancies. Data were combined from cohorts in 8 countries to produce a single, prescriptive, multiethnic standard for birthweight10, 11 and fetal growth12, 13 to be used universally. The recently published World Health Organization fetal growth project,14 based on data from 10 countries, used similar methodology, but concluded that there were significant differences between populations in maternal characteristics that affected growth. Similarly, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Fetal Growth Studies15 and other studies16, 17, 18 demonstrated ethnic differences in fetal growth in low-risk pregnancies. Nevertheless, the IG21 standards are being actively promoted and have begun to be implemented in many settings.
We therefore set out to compare the IG21 birthweight standard with the individually customized (GROW) standard in an international cohort based on maternity datasets from 10 countries, to assess how well they were able to associate birthweight with stillbirth risk. We focused our analysis on term data, as preterm birthweight ought to be assessed with a fetal rather than a neonatal weight standard in light of the known associations between prematurity and fetal growth restriction.19, 20, 21
Section snippets
Data source
The Perinatal Institute administers the Gestation Network (www.gestation.net), which is a portal for provision of free software tools including customized centile calculators for local, national, and international use. The applications contain coefficients for adjustment of the growth and weight standard according to maternal characteristics, derived from anonymized databases submitted from clinicians and researchers who wish to have an application suitable for their own local population. To
Results
Details of the 10 datasets are listed in Table 2. Averages with measures of dispersion are provided to illustrate the wide variation in maternal characteristics between country cohorts. Maternal height ranged from 155-170 cm, early pregnancy weight from 54-69 kg, median gestational age at delivery from 273-282 days, and median birthweight from 3040-3610 g.
Also shown is the ethnic group-based TOW predicted for a standard size mother in her first pregnancy at 280 days (TOW1), and the predicted
Comment
This is, to our knowledge, the first multinational comparison of the IG21 and customized birthweight standards. It shows firstly that using IG21, there are wide differences in SGA and LGA rates across the 10 cohorts studied, ranging from 3.1-16.8% for SGA and 5.1-27.5% for LGA rates. As Figures 2 and 3 show, these values are strongly correlated with the TOW calculated by GROW for each cohort, suggesting that IG21 SGA and LGA rates vary mostly due to physiological differences between different
Acknowledgment
We would like to thank the collaborators and their organizations for supplying data for this multinational cohort study: Prof Phurb Dorji and A. Yangden, Jigme Dorji Wangchuck National Referral Hospital, Thimphu, Bhutan; Prof Jun Jim Zhang, Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China; Prof Birgit Arabin and Dr Bjoern Misselwitz, Geschaeftstelle Qualitaetsicherung Hessen, Eschborn, Germany; Dr Suseela Vavilala and Dr Nuzhat Aziz, Fernandez Hospital, Hyderabad, India; Prof Fergal Malone, Perinatal
References (32)
- et al.
Customized antenatal growth charts
Lancet
(1992) - et al.
Perinatal outcome in SGA births defined by customized versus population-based birthweight standards
BJOG
(2001) - et al.
Customized versus population-based birth weight standards for identifying growth restricted infants: a French multicenter study
Am J Obstet Gynecol
(2006) - et al.
Customized birthweight standards for a Spanish population
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol
(2008) - et al.
A customized standard to assess fetal growth in a US population
Am J Obstet Gynecol
(2009) - et al.
International standards for newborn weight, length, and head circumference by gestational age and sex: the newborn cross-sectional study of the INTERGROWTH-21st project
Lancet
(2014) - et al.
The likeness of fetal growth and newborn size across non-isolated populations in the INTERGROWTH-21st project: the fetal growth longitudinal study and newborn cross-sectional study
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol
(2014) - et al.
International standards for fetal growth based on serial ultrasound measurements: the fetal growth longitudinal study of the INTERGROWTH-21st project
Lancet
(2014) - et al.
Racial/ethnic standards for fetal growth: the NICHD fetal growth studies
Am J Obstet Gynecol
(2015) - et al.
Ethnicity-specific birthweight distributions improve identification of term newborns at risk for short-term morbidity
Am J Obstet Gynecol
(2013)
Prematurity and fetal growth restriction
Early Hum Dev
INTERGROWTH-21st vs customized birthweight standards for identification of perinatal mortality and morbidity
Am J Obstet Gynecol
A customized standard of large size for gestational age to predict intrapartum morbidity
Am J Obstet Gynecol
One size does not fit all
Am J Obstet Gynecol
An adjustable fetal weight standard
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol
A customized birthweight centile calculator developed for a New Zealand population
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol
Cited by (108)
Amniotic fluid rubidium concentration association with newborn birthweight: a maternal-neonatal pilot study
2023, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology MFMStillbirth risk and smallness for gestational age according to Hadlock, INTERGROWTH-21st, WHO, and GROW fetal weight standards: analysis by maternal ethnicity and body mass index
2023, American Journal of Obstetrics and GynecologyThe Danish newborn standard and the International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st Century newborn standard: a nationwide register-based cohort study
2023, American Journal of Obstetrics and GynecologyReview of the literature on intrauterine and birthweight charts
2023, Gynecologie Obstetrique Fertilite et SenologieCOVID-19 vaccination among pregnant people in the United States: a systematic review
2022, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology MFM
Disclosure: All authors are employees of the Perinatal Institute, a not-for-profit organization that derives income from the provision of support services to health care organizations, which may include the GROW software for customized growth charts mentioned in this article.