American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
Volume 201, Issue 1 , Pages 25.e1-25.e7, July 2009

A customized standard to assess fetal growth in a US population

  • Jason Gardosi, MD, FRCOG

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationReprints: Jason Gardosi, MD, West Midlands Perinatal Institute, Crystal Court, Aston Cross, Birmingham B6 5RQ, UK
  • ,
  • Andre Francis, MSc

West Midlands Perinatal Institute, Birmingham, England, UK

Received 18 December 2008; received in revised form 16 January 2009; accepted 20 April 2009.

Objective

The objective of the study was to assess the factors that affect fetal growth and birthweight, and to derive coefficients for a customized growth chart applicable in an American population.

Study Design

This was a prospective cohort study of 35,235 pregnancies. Coefficients for physiological and pathological variables were derived by backward multiple regression.

Results

The expected birthweight at 40.0 weeks for a standard-size primiparous mother of European origin in an uncomplicated pregnancy was 3453.4 g, very similar to the standardized birthweight observed in other populations. Physiological coefficients were derived for maternal height, weight, parity, ethnic origin, and sex of the baby. Smoking, history of preterm delivery, and hypertensive diseases in the current pregnancy all had negative effects on birthweight, whereas babies of diabetic mothers weighed more. Low as well as high body mass index was associated with birthweight deficit at term.

Conclusion

Coefficients that allow determination of the customized growth potential, individually adjusted and excluding known pathological factors, have been derived. Babies of obese mothers have an increased risk of not reaching their fetal growth potential.

Key words: birthweight, customized growth charts, fetal growth, growth potential

 

 Cite this article as: Gardosi J, Francis A. A customized standard to assess fetal growth in a US population. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;201:25.e1-7.

PII: S0002-9378(09)00429-3

doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2009.04.035

American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
Volume 201, Issue 1 , Pages 25.e1-25.e7, July 2009