Dataset Information

Which chart and which cut-point: deciding on the INTERGROWTH, World Health Organization, or Hadlock fetal growth chart.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine how various centile cut points on the INTERGROWTH-21st (INTERGROWTH), World Health Organization (WHO), and Hadlock fetal growth charts predict perinatal morbidity/mortality, and how this relates to choosing a fetal growth chart for clinical use.

Methods

We linked antenatal ultrasound measurements for fetuses > 28 weeks' gestation from the British Columbia Women's hospital ultrasound unit with the provincial perinatal database. We estimated the risk of perinatal morbidity/mortality (decreased cord pH, neonatal seizures, hypoglycemia, and perinatal death) associated with select centiles on each fetal growth chart (the 3rd, 10th, the centile identifying 10% of the population, and the optimal cut-point by Youden's Index), and determined how well each centile predicted perinatal morbidity/mortality.

Results

Among 10,366 pregnancies, the 10th centile cut-point had a sensitivity of 11% (95% CI 8, 14), 13% (95% CI 10, 16), and 12% (95% CI 10, 16), to detect fetuses with perinatal morbidity/mortality on the INTERGROWTH, WHO, and Hadlock charts, respectively. All charts performed similarly in predicting perinatal morbidity/mortality (area under the curve [AUC] =0.54 for all three charts). The statistically optimal cut-points were the 39th, 31st, and 32nd centiles on the INTERGROWTH, WHO, and Hadlock charts respectively.

Conclusion

The INTERGROWTH, WHO, and Hadlock fetal growth charts performed similarly in predicting perinatal morbidity/mortality, even when evaluating multiple cut points. Deciding which cut-point and chart to use may be guided by other considerations such as impact on workflow and how the chart was derived.

SUBMITTER: Liauw J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8751336 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Three recently completed longitudinal cohort studies have developed intrauterine fetal growth charts, one in the United States and two international. This expert review compares and contrasts the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Fetal Growth Studies, INTERGROWTH-21st and World Health Organization Multicentre Growth Reference Study conclusions in light of differences in aims, sampling frames, and analytical approaches. An area of controversy is whether a single growth reference is representative of growth, regardless of ethnic or country origin. The INTERGROWTH and World Health Organization Fetal studies used a similar approach as the World Health Organization Multicentre Growth Reference Study for infants and children, the aim of which was to create a single international reference for the best physiological growth for children aged 0-5 years. INTERGROWTH made the same assumption (ie, that there would be no differences internationally among countries or racial/ethnic groups in fetal growth when conditions were optimal). INTERGROWTH found differences in crown-rump length and head circumference among countries but interpreted the differences as not meaningful and presented a pooled standard. The World Health Organization Multicentre Growth Reference Study was designed to create a pooled reference, although they evaluated for and presented country differences, along with discussion of the implications. The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study was designed to assess whether racial/ethnic-specific fetal growth standards were needed, in recognition of the fact that fetal size is commonly estimated from dimensions (head circumference, abdominal circumference, and femur length) in which there are known differences in children and adults of differing racial/ethnic groups. A pooled standard would be derived if no racial/ethnic differences were found. Highly statistically significant racial/ethnic differences in fetal growth were found resulting in the publication of racial/ethnic-specific derived standards. Despite all 3 studies including low-risk status women, the percentiles for fetal dimensions and estimated fetal weight varied among the studies. Specifically, at 39 weeks, the 50th percentile for estimated fetal weight was 3502 g for whites, 3330 g for Hispanics, 3263 g for Asians, and 3256 for blacks in the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study, compared with 3186 g for INTERGROWTH and 3403 g for World Health Organization Multicentre Growth Reference Study. When applying these standards to a clinical population, it is important to be aware that different percentages of small- and large-for-gestational-age fetuses will be identified. Also, it may be necessary to use more restrictive cut points, such as the 2.5th or 97.5th, for small-for-gestational-age or large-for-gestational-age fetuses, respectively. Ideally, a comparison of diagnostic accuracy, or misclassification rates, of small-for-gestational-age and large-for-gestational-age fetuses in relation to morbidity and mortality using different criteria is necessary to make recommendations and remains an important data gap. Identification of the appropriate percentile cutoffs in relation to neonatal morbidity and mortality is needed in local populations, depending on which fetal growth chart is used. On a final point, assessment of fetal growth with a one-time measurement remains standard clinical practice, despite recognition that a single measurement can indicate only size. Ultimately, it is knowledge about fetal growth in addition to other factors and clinical judgment that should trigger intervention.

Project description:BackgroundResearch in 2007 showed that World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations were largely based on expert opinion, rarely used systematic evidence-based methods, and did not follow the organization's own "Guidelines for Guidelines". In response, the WHO established a "Guidelines Review Committee" (GRC) to implement and oversee internationally recognized standards. We examined the impact of these changes on WHO guideline documents and explored senior staff's perceptions of the new procedures.Methods and findingsWe used the AGREE II guideline appraisal tool to appraise ten GRC-approved guidelines from nine WHO departments, and ten pre-GRC guidelines matched by department and topic. We interviewed 20 senior staff across 16 departments and analyzed the transcripts using the framework approach. Average AGREE II scores for GRC-approved guidelines were higher across all six AGREE domains compared with pre-GRC guidelines. The biggest changes were noted for "Rigour of Development" (up 37.6%, from 30.7% to 68.3%) and "Editorial Independence" (up 52.7%, from 20.9% to 73.6%). Four main themes emerged from the interviews: (1) high standards were widely recognized as essential for WHO credibility, particularly with regard to conflicts of interest; (2) views were mixed on whether WHO needed a single quality assurance mechanism, with some departments purposefully bypassing the procedures; (3) staff expressed some uncertainties in applying the GRADE approach, with departmental staff concentrating on technicalities while the GRC remained concerned the underlying principles were not fully institutionalized; (4) the capacity to implement the new standards varied widely, with many departments looking to an overstretched GRC for technical support.ConclusionsSince 2007, WHO guideline development methods have become more systematic and transparent. However, some departments are bypassing the procedures, and as yet neither the GRC, nor the quality assurance standards they have set, are fully embedded within the organization.

Project description:The World Health Organization (WHO) has recently developed a non-laboratory based cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk chart considering the parameters age, sex, current smoking status, systolic blood pressure, and body mass index. Using the chart, we estimated the 10-years CVD risk among the Bangladeshi population aged 40-74 years. We analyzed data from a nationally representative survey conducted in 2018-19. The survey enrolled participants from 82 clusters (57 rural, 15 non-slum urban, and 10 slums) selected by multistage cluster sampling. Using the non-laboratory-based CVD risk chart of the World Health Organization (WHO), we categorized the participants into 5 risk groups: very low (<5%), low (5% to <10%), moderate (10% to <20%), high (20% to <30%) and very high (> = 30%) risk. We performed descriptive analyses to report the distribution of CVD risk and carried out univariable and multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with elevated CVD risk (> = 10% CVD risk). Of the 7,381 participants, 46.0% were female. The median age (IQR) was 59.0 (48.0-64.7) years. Overall, the prevalence of very low, low, moderate, high, and very high CVD risk was 34.7%, 37.8%, 25.9%, 1.6%, and 0.1%, respectively. Elevated CVD risk (> = 10%) was associated with poor education, currently unmarried, insufficient physical inactivity, smokeless tobacco use, and self-reported diabetes in both sexes, higher household income, and higher sedentary time among males, and slum-dwelling and non-Muslim religions among females. One in every four Bangladeshi adults had elevated levels of CVD risk, and males are at higher risk of occurring CVD events. Non-laboratory-based risk prediction charts can be effectively used in low resource settings. The government of Bangladesh and other developing countries should train the primary health care workers on the use of WHO non-laboratory-based CVD risk charts, especially in settings where laboratory tests are not available.