胎儿区域特异性优化生长标准(FROGS)-在全国人口中验证的胎儿和出生体重百分位数计算器。

IF 9.9 1区 医学 Q1 Medicine
PLoS Medicine Pub Date : 2025-06-20 eCollection Date: 2025-06-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.1004634
Natasha L Pritchard, Stephen Tong, Teresa MacDonald, Elizabeth McCarthy, Lisa Hui, Michael Bethune, Hannah G Gordon, Roxanne Hastie, Emerson Keenan, Michael Permezel, Susan P Walker, Anthea C Lindquist
{"title":"胎儿区域特异性优化生长标准(FROGS)-在全国人口中验证的胎儿和出生体重百分位数计算器。","authors":"Natasha L Pritchard, Stephen Tong, Teresa MacDonald, Elizabeth McCarthy, Lisa Hui, Michael Bethune, Hannah G Gordon, Roxanne Hastie, Emerson Keenan, Michael Permezel, Susan P Walker, Anthea C Lindquist","doi":"10.1371/journal.pmed.1004634","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is no universally agreed upon obstetric growth standard for use during pregnancy. We aimed to design a simple novel growth standard, which incorporates key beneficial features identified in prior research.</p><p><strong>Methods and findings: </strong>We developed the Fetal Region-specific Optimized Growth Standard (FROGS), then validated it following International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) guidelines. FROGS follows the shape of the fetal (ultrasound-based) Hadlock curve. It is region-specific; allowing adjustment for the mean birthweight and standard deviation of babies born at term in the local population where it will be applied. It provides an exact centile for each gestational day (rather than rounding off by weeks) and is optionally adjustable for fetal sex. Further, FROGS provides an 'estimate range' for the estimated fetal weight centile, assuming a 10% ultrasound measurement error. Following development, we validated FROGS in a retrospective cohort study by comparing its ability to identify small babies with an increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes to four charts in current use: (1) population birthweight chart (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, AIHW chart); (2) Hadlock's 1991 fetal chart; (3) Mikolajczyk's global fetal and birthweight centile chart; and (4) INTERGROWTH-21st fetal growth standards. To do this, we identified infants classified as small for gestational age (<10th centile) by each chart. We then identified non-overlapping <10th centile populations, i.e., infants classified as small by one chart, but not another. We compared rates of stillbirth and adverse perinatal outcomes between the non-overlapping populations. All charts except INTERGROWTH classified similar proportions of infants as <10th centile (10.4% FROGS, 9.3% AIHW, 11.1% Hadlock, 10.9% global, 4.4% INTERGROWTH). Of the three charts that classified similar proportions as <10th centile, infants classified by FROGS were at the highest risk of adverse perinatal outcomes. The infants classified as <10th centile by only FROGS had significantly increased relative risk (RR) of stillbirth, compared to the infants classified as <10th centile by only AIHW (RR 13.1, 95% CI 6.5-26.5), only Hadlock (RR 2.1, 95% CI 1.28-3.56) or only the global chart (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.00-2.37). The FROGS chart outperformed these three charts in identifying infants at risk of other adverse perinatal outcomes associated with being small for gestational age, such as neonatal intensive care admission, Apgar scores <7 at 5 min, and operative (instrumental) vaginal birth for suspected fetal compromise. The cohort of infants classified as small for gestational age by INTERGROWTH was, in size and risk, closer to the cohort classified as <3rd centile by FROGS (3.4% of infants <3rd). This study is limited in that it retrospectively assesses birthweight, which may have different implications to a prospective evaluation of estimated fetal weight.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared to currently used charts, the Fetal Region-specific Optimized Growth Standard outperforms existing charts that classify a similar proportion of infants as small for gestational age in identifying small infants at increased risk of stillbirth and other serious perinatal outcomes. The FROGS centile algorithm is simple and transparent. It has the potential to be adapted to other local populations, or applied to clinical and research settings globally.</p>","PeriodicalId":49008,"journal":{"name":"PLoS Medicine","volume":"22 6","pages":"e1004634"},"PeriodicalIF":9.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12212869/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Fetal Region-specific Optimized Growth Standard (FROGS)-A fetal and birthweight centile calculator validated in a national population.\",\"authors\":\"Natasha L Pritchard, Stephen Tong, Teresa MacDonald, Elizabeth McCarthy, Lisa Hui, Michael Bethune, Hannah G Gordon, Roxanne Hastie, Emerson Keenan, Michael Permezel, Susan P Walker, Anthea C Lindquist\",\"doi\":\"10.1371/journal.pmed.1004634\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is no universally agreed upon obstetric growth standard for use during pregnancy. We aimed to design a simple novel growth standard, which incorporates key beneficial features identified in prior research.</p><p><strong>Methods and findings: </strong>We developed the Fetal Region-specific Optimized Growth Standard (FROGS), then validated it following International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) guidelines. FROGS follows the shape of the fetal (ultrasound-based) Hadlock curve. It is region-specific; allowing adjustment for the mean birthweight and standard deviation of babies born at term in the local population where it will be applied. It provides an exact centile for each gestational day (rather than rounding off by weeks) and is optionally adjustable for fetal sex. Further, FROGS provides an 'estimate range' for the estimated fetal weight centile, assuming a 10% ultrasound measurement error. Following development, we validated FROGS in a retrospective cohort study by comparing its ability to identify small babies with an increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes to four charts in current use: (1) population birthweight chart (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, AIHW chart); (2) Hadlock's 1991 fetal chart; (3) Mikolajczyk's global fetal and birthweight centile chart; and (4) INTERGROWTH-21st fetal growth standards. To do this, we identified infants classified as small for gestational age (<10th centile) by each chart. We then identified non-overlapping <10th centile populations, i.e., infants classified as small by one chart, but not another. We compared rates of stillbirth and adverse perinatal outcomes between the non-overlapping populations. All charts except INTERGROWTH classified similar proportions of infants as <10th centile (10.4% FROGS, 9.3% AIHW, 11.1% Hadlock, 10.9% global, 4.4% INTERGROWTH). Of the three charts that classified similar proportions as <10th centile, infants classified by FROGS were at the highest risk of adverse perinatal outcomes. The infants classified as <10th centile by only FROGS had significantly increased relative risk (RR) of stillbirth, compared to the infants classified as <10th centile by only AIHW (RR 13.1, 95% CI 6.5-26.5), only Hadlock (RR 2.1, 95% CI 1.28-3.56) or only the global chart (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.00-2.37). The FROGS chart outperformed these three charts in identifying infants at risk of other adverse perinatal outcomes associated with being small for gestational age, such as neonatal intensive care admission, Apgar scores <7 at 5 min, and operative (instrumental) vaginal birth for suspected fetal compromise. The cohort of infants classified as small for gestational age by INTERGROWTH was, in size and risk, closer to the cohort classified as <3rd centile by FROGS (3.4% of infants <3rd). This study is limited in that it retrospectively assesses birthweight, which may have different implications to a prospective evaluation of estimated fetal weight.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared to currently used charts, the Fetal Region-specific Optimized Growth Standard outperforms existing charts that classify a similar proportion of infants as small for gestational age in identifying small infants at increased risk of stillbirth and other serious perinatal outcomes. The FROGS centile algorithm is simple and transparent. It has the potential to be adapted to other local populations, or applied to clinical and research settings globally.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49008,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PLoS Medicine\",\"volume\":\"22 6\",\"pages\":\"e1004634\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12212869/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PLoS Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004634\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/6/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004634","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:没有普遍同意的妊娠期间使用的产科生长标准。我们的目标是设计一种简单的新型生长标准,它包含了先前研究中确定的关键有益特征。方法和发现:我们制定了胎儿区域特异性优化生长标准(FROGS),并根据国际妇产科联合会(FIGO)指南对其进行了验证。frog遵循胎儿(基于超声波的)哈德洛克曲线的形状。它是特定区域的;允许在适用该指数的当地人口中对足月出生婴儿的平均出生体重和标准差进行调整。它为每个妊娠日提供了一个精确的百分位数(而不是按周四舍五入),并可根据胎儿性别进行可选调整。此外,frog为估计的胎儿体重百分位数提供了一个“估计范围”,假设超声测量误差为10%。随后,我们在一项回顾性队列研究中验证了frog,将其识别围产期不良结局风险增加的小婴儿的能力与目前使用的四种图表进行了比较:(1)人口出生体重图(澳大利亚卫生与福利研究所,AIHW图表);(2)哈德洛克1991年胎儿图;(3) Mikolajczyk全球胎儿和出生体重百分位图;(4) intergrowth -21胎生长标准。为此,我们确定了小胎龄婴儿(结论:与目前使用的图表相比,胎儿区域特异性优化生长标准在识别死产和其他严重围产期结局风险增加的小胎龄婴儿方面优于现有的将相似比例的婴儿分类为小胎龄的图表)。FROGS分位数算法简单透明。它有可能适用于其他地方人群,或应用于全球的临床和研究环境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Fetal Region-specific Optimized Growth Standard (FROGS)-A fetal and birthweight centile calculator validated in a national population.

Background: There is no universally agreed upon obstetric growth standard for use during pregnancy. We aimed to design a simple novel growth standard, which incorporates key beneficial features identified in prior research.

Methods and findings: We developed the Fetal Region-specific Optimized Growth Standard (FROGS), then validated it following International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) guidelines. FROGS follows the shape of the fetal (ultrasound-based) Hadlock curve. It is region-specific; allowing adjustment for the mean birthweight and standard deviation of babies born at term in the local population where it will be applied. It provides an exact centile for each gestational day (rather than rounding off by weeks) and is optionally adjustable for fetal sex. Further, FROGS provides an 'estimate range' for the estimated fetal weight centile, assuming a 10% ultrasound measurement error. Following development, we validated FROGS in a retrospective cohort study by comparing its ability to identify small babies with an increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes to four charts in current use: (1) population birthweight chart (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, AIHW chart); (2) Hadlock's 1991 fetal chart; (3) Mikolajczyk's global fetal and birthweight centile chart; and (4) INTERGROWTH-21st fetal growth standards. To do this, we identified infants classified as small for gestational age (<10th centile) by each chart. We then identified non-overlapping <10th centile populations, i.e., infants classified as small by one chart, but not another. We compared rates of stillbirth and adverse perinatal outcomes between the non-overlapping populations. All charts except INTERGROWTH classified similar proportions of infants as <10th centile (10.4% FROGS, 9.3% AIHW, 11.1% Hadlock, 10.9% global, 4.4% INTERGROWTH). Of the three charts that classified similar proportions as <10th centile, infants classified by FROGS were at the highest risk of adverse perinatal outcomes. The infants classified as <10th centile by only FROGS had significantly increased relative risk (RR) of stillbirth, compared to the infants classified as <10th centile by only AIHW (RR 13.1, 95% CI 6.5-26.5), only Hadlock (RR 2.1, 95% CI 1.28-3.56) or only the global chart (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.00-2.37). The FROGS chart outperformed these three charts in identifying infants at risk of other adverse perinatal outcomes associated with being small for gestational age, such as neonatal intensive care admission, Apgar scores <7 at 5 min, and operative (instrumental) vaginal birth for suspected fetal compromise. The cohort of infants classified as small for gestational age by INTERGROWTH was, in size and risk, closer to the cohort classified as <3rd centile by FROGS (3.4% of infants <3rd). This study is limited in that it retrospectively assesses birthweight, which may have different implications to a prospective evaluation of estimated fetal weight.

Conclusions: Compared to currently used charts, the Fetal Region-specific Optimized Growth Standard outperforms existing charts that classify a similar proportion of infants as small for gestational age in identifying small infants at increased risk of stillbirth and other serious perinatal outcomes. The FROGS centile algorithm is simple and transparent. It has the potential to be adapted to other local populations, or applied to clinical and research settings globally.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
PLoS Medicine
PLoS Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
17.60
自引率
0.60%
发文量
227
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: PLOS Medicine is a prominent platform for discussing and researching global health challenges. The journal covers a wide range of topics, including biomedical, environmental, social, and political factors affecting health. It prioritizes articles that contribute to clinical practice, health policy, or a better understanding of pathophysiology, ultimately aiming to improve health outcomes across different settings. The journal is unwavering in its commitment to uphold the highest ethical standards in medical publishing. This includes actively managing and disclosing any conflicts of interest related to reporting, reviewing, and publishing. PLOS Medicine promotes transparency in the entire review and publication process. The journal also encourages data sharing and encourages the reuse of published work. Additionally, authors retain copyright for their work, and the publication is made accessible through Open Access with no restrictions on availability and dissemination. PLOS Medicine takes measures to avoid conflicts of interest associated with advertising drugs and medical devices or engaging in the exclusive sale of reprints.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信