Advertisement

Customized growth charts: rationale, validation and clinical benefits

      Appropriate standards for the assessment of fetal growth and birthweight are central to good clinical care, and have become even more important with increasing evidence that growth-related adverse outcomes are potentially avoidable. Standards need to be evidence based and validated against pregnancy outcome and able to demonstrate utility and effectiveness. A review of proposals by the Intergrowth consortium to adopt their single international standard finds little support for the claim that the cases that it identifies as small are due to malnutrition or stunting, and substantial evidence that there is normal physiologic variation between different countries and ethnic groups. It is possible that the one-size-fits-all standard ends up fitting no one and could be harmful if implemented. An alternative is the concept of country-specific charts that can improve the association between abnormal growth and adverse outcome. However, such standards ignore individual physiologic variation that affects fetal growth, which exists in any heterogeneous population and exceeds intercountry differences. It is therefore more logical to adjust for the characteristics of each mother, taking her ethnic origin and her height, weight, and parity into account, and to set a growth and birthweight standard for each pregnancy against which actual growth can be assessed. A customized standard better reflects adverse pregnancy outcome at both ends of the fetal size spectrum and has increased clinicians’ confidence in growth assessment, while providing reassurance when abnormal size merely represents physiologic variation. Rollout in the United Kingdom has proceeded as part of the comprehensive Growth Assessment Protocol (GAP), and has resulted in a steady increase in antenatal detection of babies who are at risk because of fetal growth restriction. This in turn has been accompanied by a year-on-year drop in stillbirth rates to their lowest ever levels in England. A global version of customized growth charts with over 100 ethnic origin categories is being launched in 2018, and will provide an individualized, yet universally applicable, standard for fetal growth.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic and Personal
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Papageorghiou A.T.
        • Ohuma E.O.
        • Altman D.G.
        • et al.
        International standards for fetal growth based on serial ultrasound measurements: the Fetal Growth Longitudinal Study of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project.
        Lancet. 2014; 384: 869-879
        • Villar J.
        • Ismail L.C.
        • Victora C.G.
        • 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; 384: 857-868
        • Stirnemann J.
        • Villar J.
        • Salomon L.J.
        • et al.
        International estimated fetal weight standards of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project.
        Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 49: 478-486
        • Alexander G.R.
        • Kogan M.D.
        • Himes J.H.
        • Mor J.M.
        • Goldenberg R.
        Racial differences in birthweight for gestational age and infant mortality in extremely-low-risk US populations.
        Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 1999; 13: 205-217
        • Kierans W.J.
        • Joseph K.S.
        • Luo Z.-C.
        • Platt R.
        • Wilkins R.
        • Kramer M.S.
        Does one size fit all? The case for ethnic-specific standards of fetal growth.
        BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2008; 8: 1
        • Hanley G.E.
        • Janssen P.A.
        Ethnicity-specific birthweight distributions improve identification of term newborns at risk for short-term morbidity.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 209: 428.e1-428.e6
        • Buck Louis G.M.
        • Grewal J.
        • Albert P.S.
        • et al.
        Racial/ethnic standards for fetal growth: the NICHD Fetal Growth Studies.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 213: 449.e1-449.e41
        • Anderson N.H.
        • Sadler L.C.
        • McKinlay C.J.D.
        • McCowan L.M.E.
        INTERGROWTH-21st vs customized birthweight standards for identification of perinatal mortality and morbidity.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 214: 509.e1-509.e7
        • Cheng Y.
        • Leung T.
        • Lao T.
        • Chan Y.
        • Sahota D.
        Impact of replacing Chinese ethnicity-specific fetal biometry charts with the INTERGROWTH-21st standard.
        BJOG. 2016; 123: 48-55
        • Poon L.C.Y.
        • Tan M.Y.
        • Yerlikaya G.
        • Syngelaki A.
        • Nicolaides K.H.
        Birth weight in live births and stillbirths: Birth weight in live births and stillbirths.
        Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 48: 602-606
        • Hanson M.
        • Kiserud T.
        • Visser G.H.A.
        • Brocklehurst P.
        • Schneider E.B.
        Optimal fetal growth: a misconception?.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 213: 332.e1-332.e4
        • Kiserud T.
        • Piaggio G.
        • Carroli G.
        • et al.
        The World Health Organization Fetal Growth Charts: a multinational longitudinal study of ultrasound biometric measurements and estimated fetal weight.
        PLOS Med. 2017; 14: e1002220
        • Francis A.
        • Hugh O.
        • Gardosi J.
        Customised vs INTERGROWTH-21st standards for the assessment of birthweight and stillbirth risk at term.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 218: S692-S699
        • Lee A.C.
        • Kozuki N.
        • Cousens S.
        • et al.
        Estimates of burden and consequences of infants born small for gestational age in low and middle income countries with INTERGROWTH-21st standard: analysis of CHERG datasets.
        BMJ. 2017; 358: j3677
        • Gardosi J.
        • Chang A.
        • Kalyan B.
        • Sahota D.
        • Symonds E.M.
        Customized antenatal growth charts.
        Lancet. 1992; 339: 283-287
        • Gardosi J.
        • Mongelli M.
        • Wilcox M.
        • Chang A.
        An adjustable fetal weight standard.
        Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1995; 6: 168-174
        • Deter R.L.
        • Rossavik I.K.
        • Harrist R.B.
        • Hadlock F.P.
        Mathematical modeling of fetal growth: development of individual growth curve standards.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1986; 68: 156-161
        • Deter R.L.
        • Lee W.
        • Yeo L.
        • Romero R.
        Individualized fetal growth assessment: critical evaluation of key concepts in the specification of third trimester growth trajectories.
        J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014; 27: 543-551
        • Gardosi J.
        Individualized fetal growth assessment and accuracy of prediction.
        Ultrasound Obstet Gynaecol. 1996; 7: 462-463
        • Pedersen N.G.
        • Figueras F.
        • Wøjdemann K.R.
        • Tabor A.
        • Gardosi J.
        Early fetal size and growth as predictors of adverse outcome.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 112: 765-771
        • Simic M.
        • Stephansson O.
        • Petersson G.
        • Cnattingius S.
        • Wikström A.K.
        Slow fetal growth between first and early second trimester ultrasound scans and risk of small for gestational age (SGA) birth.
        PLoS One. 2017; 12: e0184853
        • Gardosi J.
        • Madurasinghe V.
        • Williams M.
        • Malik A.
        • Francis A.
        Maternal and fetal risk factors for stillbirth: population based study.
        BMJ. 2013; 346: f108
        • Clausson B.
        • Gardosi J.
        • Francis A.
        • Cnattingius S.
        Perinatal outcome in SGA births defined by customized versus population-based birthweight standards.
        BJOG. 2001; 108: 830-834
        • Mongelli M.
        • Figueras F.
        • Francis A.
        • Gardosi J.
        A customized birthweight centile calculator developed for an Australian population.
        Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007; 47: 128-131
        • McCowan L.
        • Stewart A.W.
        • Francis A.
        • Gardosi J.
        A customized birthweight centile calculator developed for a New Zealand population.
        Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2004; 44: 428-431
        • Ego A.
        • Subtil D.
        • Grange G.
        • et al.
        Customized versus population-based birth weight standards for identifying growth restricted infants: a French multicenter study.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 194: 1042-1049
        • Figueras F.
        • Meler E.
        • Iraola A.
        • et al.
        Customized birthweight standards for a Spanish population.
        Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008; 136: 20-24
        • Gardosi J.
        • Francis A.
        A customized standard to assess fetal growth in a US population.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 201: 25.e1-25.e7
        • Unterscheider J.
        • Geary M.P.
        • Daly S.
        • et al.
        The customized fetal growth potential: a standard for Ireland.
        Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013; 166: 14-17
        • Hadlock F.P.
        • Harrist R.B.
        • Martinez-Poyer J.
        In utero analysis of fetal growth: a sonographic weight standard.
        Radiology. 1991; 181: 129-133
        • Gardosi J.O.
        Prematurity and fetal growth restriction.
        Early Hum Dev. 2005; 81: 43-49
        • Gardosi J.
        • Clausson B.
        • Francis A.
        The value of customized centiles in assessing perinatal mortality risk associated with parity and maternal size: Value of customising centiles for parity and maternal size.
        BJOG. 2009; 116: 1356-1363
        • Gardosi J.
        • Figueras F.
        • Clausson B.
        • Francis A.
        The customized growth potential: an international research tool to study the epidemiology of fetal growth: Customized growth potential.
        Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2011; 25: 2-10
        • Larkin J.C.
        • Speer P.D.
        • Simhan H.N.
        A customized standard of large size for gestational age to predict intrapartum morbidity.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 204: 499.e1-499.e10
        • Cha H.-H.
        • Kim J.-Y.
        • Choi S.-J.
        • Oh S.-Y.
        • Roh C.-R.
        • Kim J.-H.
        Can a customized standard for large for gestational age identify women at risk of operative delivery and shoulder dystocia?.
        J Perinat Med. 2012; 40: 483-488
        • González-González N.L.
        • González-Dávila E.
        • Cabrera F.
        • et al.
        Application of customized birth weight curves in the assessment of perinatal outcomes in infants of diabetic mothers.
        Fetal Diagn Ther. 2015; 37: 117-122
        • Sjaarda L.A.
        • Albert P.S.
        • Mumford S.L.
        • Hinkle S.N.
        • Mendola P.
        • Laughon S.K.
        Customized large-for-gestational-age birthweight at term and the association with adverse perinatal outcomes.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 210: 63.e1-63.e11
        • Costantine M.
        • Mele L.
        • Landon M.
        • et al.
        Customized versus population approach for evaluation of fetal overgrowth.
        Am J Perinatol. 2012; 30: 565-572
        • Jong C.L.
        • Gardosi J.
        • Dekker G.A.
        • Colenbrander G.J.
        • Geijn H.P.
        Application of a customized birthweight standard in the assessment of perinatal outcome in a high risk population.
        BJOG. 1998; 105: 531-535
        • McCowan L.M.
        • Harding J.E.
        • Stewart A.W.
        Customized birthweight centiles predict SGA pregnancies with perinatal morbidity.
        BJOG. 2005; 112: 1026-1033
        • Figueras F.
        • Figueras J.
        • Meler E.
        • et al.
        Customized birthweight standards accurately predict perinatal morbidity.
        Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2007; 92: F277-F280
        • Figueras F.
        • Eixarch E.
        • Gratacos E.
        • Gardosi J.
        Predictiveness of antenatal umbilical artery Doppler for adverse pregnancy outcome in small-for-gestational-age babies according to customized birthweight centiles: population-based study.
        BJOG. 2008; 115: 590-594
        • Gardosi J.
        • Francis A.
        Adverse pregnancy outcome and association with small for gestational age birthweight by customized and population-based percentiles.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 201: 28.e1-28.e8
        • Kase B.A.
        • Carreno C.A.
        • Blackwell S.C.
        Customized estimated fetal weight: a novel antenatal tool to diagnose abnormal fetal growth.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 207: 218.e1-218.e5
        • Chiossi G.
        • Pedroza C.
        • Costantine M.M.
        • Truong V.T.T.
        • Gargano G.
        • Saade G.R.
        Customized vs population-based growth charts to identify neonates at risk of adverse outcome: systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis of observational studies.
        Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 50: 156-166
        • Groom K.M.
        • Poppe K.K.
        • North R.A.
        • McCowan L.M.E.
        Small-for-gestational-age infants classified by customized or population birthweight centiles: impact of gestational age at delivery.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 197: 239.e1-239.e5
        • Zeitlin J.
        • Ancel P.Y.
        • Saurel-Cubizolles M.J.
        • Papiernik E.
        The relationship between intrauterine growth restriction and preterm delivery: an empirical approach using data from a European case-control study.
        BJOG. 2000; 107: 750-758
        • Hutcheon J.
        • Zhang X.
        • Cnattingius S.
        • Kramer M.
        • Platt R.
        Customized birthweight percentiles: does adjusting for maternal characteristics matter?.
        BJOG. 2008; 115: 1397-1404
        • Carberry A.E.
        • Raynes-Greenow C.H.
        • Turner R.M.
        • Jeffery H.E.
        Customized versus population-based birth weight charts for the detection of neonatal growth and perinatal morbidity in a cross-sectional study of term neonates.
        Am J Epidemiol. 2013; 178: 1301-1308
        • Iliodromiti S.
        • Mackay D.F.
        • Smith G.C.
        • et al.
        Customized and noncustomized birth weight centiles and prediction of stillbirth and infant mortality and morbidity: a cohort study of 979,912 term singleton pregnancies in Scotland.
        PLoS Med. 2017; 14: e1002228
        • Pepe M.S.
        • Fan J.
        • Feng Z.
        • Gerds T.
        • Hilden J.
        The Net Reclassification Index (NRI): a misleading measure of prediction improvement even with independent test data sets.
        Stat Biosci. 2015; 7: 282-295
        • Mikolajczyk R.T.
        • Zhang J.
        • Betran A.P.
        • et al.
        A global reference for fetal-weight and birthweight percentiles.
        Lancet. 2011; 377: 1855-1861
        • Cnattingius S.
        • Bergström R.
        • Lipworth L.
        • Kramer M.S.
        Prepregnancy weight and the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes.
        N Engl J Med. 1998; 338: 147-152
        • Gardosi J.
        • Clausson B.
        • Francis A.
        The use of customized versus population-based birthweight standards in predicting perinatal mortality.
        BJOG. 2007; 114: 1301-1302
        • Mongelli M.
        • Gardosi J.
        Reduction of false-positive diagnosis of fetal growth restriction by application of customized fetal growth standards.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 88: 844-848
      1. Giddings S, Clifford S, Madurasinghe V, Gardosi J. Customized vs uncustomized ultrasound charts in the assessment of perinatal mortality risk in the South Asian maternity population. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2014;99(suppl1):A104.

        • Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
        The investigation and management of the small for gestational age fetus.
        Green Top Guideline No 31. London, UK: RCOG, 2013
        • Chauhan S.P.
        • Cole J.
        • Sanderson M.
        • Magann E.F.
        • Scardo J.A.
        Suspicion of intrauterine growth restriction: Use of abdominal circumference alone or estimated fetal weight below 10%.
        J Mat Fetal Neonatal Med. 2006; 19: 557-562
        • Chang T.C.
        • Robson S.C.
        • Spencer J.A.D.
        • Gallivan S.
        Identification of fetal growth retardation: comparison of Doppler waveform indices and serial ultrasound measurements of abdominal circumference.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1993; 82: 230-236
        • Iraola A.
        • González I.
        • Eixarch E.
        • et al.
        Prediction of adverse perinatal outcome at term in small-for-gestational age fetuses: comparison of growth velocity vs customized assessment.
        J Perinat Med. 2008; 36: 531-535
        • Figueras F.
        • Gardosi J.
        Intrauterine growth restriction: new concepts in antenatal surveillance, diagnosis, and management.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 204: 288-300
        • De Jong C.L.D.
        • Francis A.
        • Van Geijn H.P.
        • Gardosi J.
        Fetal growth rate and adverse perinatal events.
        Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 13: 86-89
        • Francis A.
        • Giddings S.
        • Turner S.
        • Gardosi J.
        prevalence of risk factors requiring serial ultrasound assessment of fetal growth according to new NHS England algorithm fc1a.009.
        BJOG. 2016; 123: 8-9
        • Gardosi J.
        • Francis A.
        Controlled trial of fundal height measurement plotted on customized antenatal growth charts.
        BJOG. 1999; 106: 309-317
        • Southam M.
        • Williams M.
        • Malik A.
        • Gardosi J.
        Effect of serial scan frequency on antenatal detection of fetal growth restriction.
        Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2014; 99: A104
        • Francis A.
        • Gardosi J.
        Effectiveness of ultrasound biometry at 34-36 weeks in the detection of small-for-gestational-age at birth.
        BJOG. 2016; 123: 86-87
        • Bakke B.
        • Nakling J.
        Effectiveness of antenatal care: a population based study.
        BJOG. 1993; 100: 727-732
        • Kean L.
        • Liu D.
        Antenatal care as a screening tool for the detection of small for gestational age babies in the low risk population.
        J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996; 16: 77-82
        • Blair P.S.
        • Sidebotham P.
        • Berry P.J.
        • Evans M.
        • Fleming P.J.
        Major epidemiological changes in sudden infant death syndrome: a 20-year population-based study in the UK.
        Lancet. 2006; 367: 314-319
        • Gardosi J.
        • Mul T.
        • Mongelli M.
        • Fagan D.
        Analysis of birthweight and gestational age in antepartum stillbirths.
        BJOG. 1998; 105: 524-530
        • Gardosi J.
        • Kady S.M.
        • McGeown P.
        • Francis A.
        • Tonks A.
        Classification of stillbirth by relevant condition at death (ReCoDe): population based cohort study.
        BMJ. 2005; 331: 1113-1117
      2. Perinatal Institute. Confidential enquiry into stillbirths with fetal growth restriction. 2007. Available at: http://www.pi.nhs.uk/rpnm/CE_SB_Final.pdf. Accessed November 6, 2017.

      3. Perinatal Institute. Stillbirths in the West Midlands: 2011 update. 2012. Available at: www.pi.nhs.uk/pnm/clusterreports/2011/WM_2011_ Stillbirth_Update_Sept_2012.pdf. Accessed November 6, 2017.

        • Gardosi J.
        • Giddings S.
        • Clifford S.
        • Wood L.
        • Francis A.
        Association between reduced stillbirth rates in England and regional uptake of accreditation training in customized fetal growth assessment.
        BMJ Open. 2013; 3: e003942
      4. Office of National Statistics. Statistical Bulletin: Births in England and Wales: 2016. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/birthsummarytablesenglandandwales/2016. Accessed November 6, 2017.

      5. National Records of Scotland. 2016 Births, deaths and other vital events - preliminary annual figures. 2017. Available at: https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/statistics-and-data/statistics/statistics-by-theme/vital-events/general-publications/births-deaths-and-other-vital-events-preliminary-annual-figures/2016. Accessed November 6, 2017.