Intrauterine growth restriction: comparison of American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists practice bulletin with other national guidelines
Received 8 July 2008; received in revised form 20 September 2008; accepted 17 November 2008. published online 17 February 2009.
Objective
The objective of the study was to compare national guidelines regarding small for gestational age (SGA).
Study Design
Along with American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) practice bulletin on abnormal growth, guidelines from England, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were reviewed.
Results
There are no guidelines on SGA from Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) guideline agrees with ACOG's definition of abnormal growth, but there are noticeable variances in the diagnosis and management of SGA. RCOG has more recommendations than ACOG (18 vs 4, respectively). The articles referenced varied, with only 13 similar articles being cited by the both committees.
Conclusion
The differences in the 2 guidelines suggest that there is variance in how 2 committees synthesize the literature and issue recommendations.
bDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jefferson Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA
Reprints not available from the authors.
Cite this article as: Chauhan SP, Gupta LM, Hendrix NW, et al. Intrauterine growth restriction: comparison of American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists practice bulletin with other national guidelines. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;200:409.e1-409.e6.
ABSTRACT
Intrauterine growth restriction: comparison of American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists practice bulletin with other national guidelines