60
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Screening for fetal growth restriction with universal third trimester ultrasonography in nulliparous women in the Pregnancy Outcome Prediction (POP) study: a prospective cohort study

      research-article
      , PhD a , , PhD b , , MPhil a , , PhD c , , Prof, DSc a , *
      Lancet (London, England)
      Elsevier

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          Fetal growth restriction is a major determinant of adverse perinatal outcome. Screening procedures for fetal growth restriction need to identify small babies and then differentiate between those that are healthy and those that are pathologically small. We sought to determine the diagnostic effectiveness of universal ultrasonic fetal biometry in the third trimester as a screening test for small-for-gestational-age (SGA) infants, and whether the risk of morbidity associated with being small differed in the presence or absence of ultrasonic markers of fetal growth restriction.

          Methods

          The Pregnancy Outcome Prediction (POP) study was a prospective cohort study of nulliparous women with a viable singleton pregnancy at the time of the dating ultrasound scan. Women participating had clinically indicated ultrasonography in the third trimester as per routine clinical care and these results were reported as usual (selective ultrasonography). Additionally, all participants had research ultrasonography, including fetal biometry at 28 and 36 weeks' gestational age. These results were not made available to participants or treating clinicians (universal ultrasonography). We regarded SGA as a birthweight of less than the 10th percentile for gestational age and screen positive for SGA an ultrasonographic estimated fetal weight of less than the 10th percentile for gestational age. Markers of fetal growth restriction included biometric ratios, utero-placental Doppler, and fetal growth velocity. We assessed outcomes for consenting participants who attended research scans and had a livebirth at the Rosie Hospital (Cambridge, UK) after the 28 weeks' research scan.

          Findings

          Between Jan 14, 2008, and July 31, 2012, 4512 women provided written informed consent of whom 3977 (88%) were eligible for analysis. Sensitivity for detection of SGA infants was 20% (95% CI 15–24; 69 of 352 fetuses) for selective ultrasonography and 57% (51–62; 199 of 352 fetuses) for universal ultrasonography (relative sensitivity 2·9, 95% CI 2·4–3·5, p<0·0001). Of the 3977 fetuses, 562 (14·1%) were identified by universal ultrasonography with an estimated fetal weight of less than the 10th percentile and were at an increased risk of neonatal morbidity (relative risk [RR] 1·60, 95% CI 1·22–2·09, p=0·0012). However, estimated fetal weight of less than the 10th percentile was only associated with the risk of neonatal morbidity (p interaction=0·005) if the fetal abdominal circumference growth velocity was in the lowest decile (RR 3·9, 95% CI 1·9–8·1, p=0·0001). 172 (4%) of 3977 pregnancies had both an estimated fetal weight of less than the 10th percentile and abdominal circumference growth velocity in the lowest decile, and had a relative risk of delivering an SGA infant with neonatal morbidity of 17·6 (9·2–34·0, p<0·0001).

          Interpretation

          Screening of nulliparous women with universal third trimester fetal biometry roughly tripled detection of SGA infants. Combined analysis of fetal biometry and fetal growth velocity identified a subset of SGA fetuses that were at increased risk of neonatal morbidity.

          Funding

          National Institute for Health Research, Medical Research Council, Sands, and GE Healthcare.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          ISUOG practice guidelines: use of Doppler ultrasonography in obstetrics.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A weighted generalized score statistic for comparison of predictive values of diagnostic tests.

            Positive and negative predictive values are important measures of a medical diagnostic test performance. We consider testing equality of two positive or two negative predictive values within a paired design in which all patients receive two diagnostic tests. The existing statistical tests for testing equality of predictive values are either Wald tests based on the multinomial distribution or the empirical Wald and generalized score tests within the generalized estimating equations (GEE) framework. As presented in the literature, these test statistics have considerably complex formulas without clear intuitive insight. We propose their re-formulations that are mathematically equivalent but algebraically simple and intuitive. As is clearly seen with a new re-formulation we presented, the generalized score statistic does not always reduce to the commonly used score statistic in the independent samples case. To alleviate this, we introduce a weighted generalized score (WGS) test statistic that incorporates empirical covariance matrix with newly proposed weights. This statistic is simple to compute, always reduces to the score statistic in the independent samples situation, and preserves type I error better than the other statistics as demonstrated by simulations. Thus, we believe that the proposed WGS statistic is the preferred statistic for testing equality of two predictive values and for corresponding sample size computations. The new formulas of the Wald statistics may be useful for easy computation of confidence intervals for difference of predictive values. The introduced concepts have potential to lead to development of the WGS test statistic in a general GEE setting. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 101: Ultrasonography in pregnancy.

              (2009)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Lancet
                Lancet
                Lancet (London, England)
                Elsevier
                0140-6736
                1474-547X
                21 November 2015
                21 November 2015
                : 386
                : 10008
                : 2089-2097
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Cambridge, National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, UK
                [b ]Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, UK
                [c ]Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's Health Partners, King's College London, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Prof Gordon C S Smith, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Cambridge, The Rosie Hospital, Cambridge CB2 2SW, UKCorrespondence to: Prof Gordon C S SmithDepartment of Obstetrics and GynaecologyUniversity of CambridgeThe Rosie HospitalCambridgeCB2 2SWUK gcss2@ 123456cam.ac.uk
                Article
                S0140-6736(15)00131-2
                10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00131-2
                4655320
                26360240
                94af23e2-c5ee-4831-8b0d-431b8acdb8e9
                © 2015 Sovio et al. Open Access article distributed under the terms of CC BY

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Articles

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content188

                Cited by184

                Most referenced authors468