Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
In This Section

Journal of Perinatal Medicine

Official Journal of the World Association of Perinatal Medicine

Editor-in-Chief: Dudenhausen, Joachim W.

Editorial Board Member: / Bancalari, Eduardo / Milner, Anne / Genc, Mehmet R. / Chervenak, Frank A. / Chappelle, Joseph / Bergmann, Renate L. / Bernardes, J.F. / Bevilacqua, G. / Blickstein, Isaac / Cabero Roura, Luis / Carbonell-Estrany, Xavier / Carrera, Jose M. / D`Addario, Vincenzo / D'Alton, MD, Mary E. / Dimitrou, G. / Grunebaum, Amos / Hentschel, Roland / Köpcke, W. / Kawabata, Ichiro / Keirse, Marc J.N.C. / Kurjak M.D., Asim / Lee, Ben H. / Levene, Malcolm / Lockwood, Charles J. / Marsal, Karel / Makatsariya, Alexander / Nishida, Hiroshi / Papp, Zoltán / Pejaver, Ranjan Kumar / Pooh, Ritsuko K. / Romero, Roberto / Saugstad, Ola D. / Schenker, Joseph G. / Sen, Cihat / Seri, Istvan / Vetter, Klaus / Winn, Hung N. / Young, Bruce K. / Zimmermann, Roland

9 Issues per year

IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 1.577
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.705

CiteScore 2016: 1.49

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.829
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.808

See all formats and pricing
In This Section
Volume 36, Issue 4 (Jul 2008)


Value of a single early third trimester fetal biometry for the prediction of birth weight deviations in a low risk population

Paul A.O.M. De Reu
  • 1Midden Brabant Midwifery Care Center, Boxtel, The Netherlands
/ L.J.M. Smits
  • 2Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
/ H.P. Oosterbaan
  • 3Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands
/ J.G. Nijhuis
  • 4Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Published Online: 2008-07-03 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/JPM.2008.057


Objective: To analyze the value of a single ultrasound biometry examination at the onset of the third trimester of pregnancy for the detection of small-for-gestational-age (SGA) and large-for-gestational-age (LGA) at birth in a low risk population. The aim of this study was to develop a simple and useful method for the detection of growth deviations during pregnancy in primary care (midwife or general practitioner) practices.

Setting: A Dutch primary care midwifery practice.

Study design: In an earlier study, we developed parity and sex specific fetal growth charts of abdominal circumference (AC) and head circumference (HC) on the basis of ultrasound data of a low-risk midwifery population in the Netherlands. In the present study, we calculated sensitivity, specificity and predictive values at different cut-off points of AC and HC for the prediction of growth deviations at birth. Patients booked for perinatal care between 1 January 1993 and 31 December 2003 (n=3449) were used for the identification of cut-off points (derivation cohort) and those admitted between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2005 (n=725) were used to evaluate the performance of these cut-offs in an independent population (validation cohort). For the determination of SGA and macrosomia at birth, we used the recently published Dutch birth weight percentiles.

Results: Most promising cut-offs were AC ≤25th percentile for the prediction of SGA (birth weight ≤10th percentile) and AC ≥75th percentile for the prediction of macrosomia (birth weight ≥90th percentile). Within the validation cohort these cut-offs performed slightly better than in the derivation cohort. For the prediction of SGA, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were 53% (95% CI 49–58%), 81% (95% CI 80–83%), 26% (95% CI 23–29%), and 93% (95% CI 93–94%), respectively. The false positive rate was 74%. For the prediction of macrosomia, the values of these parameters were 64% (95% CI 59–69%), 80% (95% CI 78–81%), 23% (95% CI 20–26%), and 96% (95% CI 95–97%), respectively. Here, false positive rate was 77%. No cut-offs were found that predicted extreme birth weight deviations (≤2.3 percentile; ≥97.7 percentile) sufficiently well.

Conclusions: In a low risk population, we could predict future growth deviations with a higher sensitivity and in a significant earlier stage (at the onset of the third trimester of pregnancy) than with the use of conventional screening methods (i.e., palpation of the uterus only and fundus-symphysis measurement). Sonographic measurement of fetal abdominal circumference enables to detect more than half of cases of SGA at birth and more than two-thirds of cases of macrosomia with acceptable false-positive rates. We suggest that fetuses with biometry results below the 25th percentile or above the 75th percentile at the onset of the third trimester of pregnancy should be more intensively investigated in order to distinguish between pathology (e.g., IUGR or macrosomia) and physiology and to decide about the appropriate level of further perinatal care.

Keywords: Effectiveness of antenatal screening; intrauterine growth restriction; large-for-gestational-age; macrosomia; prenatal care; small-for-gestational-age; ultrasound measurement

About the article

Corresponding author: Paul A.O.M. De Reu Verloskundig Centrum Midden Brabant Pelgrimspad 3 Boxtel 5281 AA The Netherlands

Received: 2007-11-28

Revised: 2008-03-22

Accepted: 2008-04-10

Published Online: 2008-07-03

Published in Print: 2008-07-01

Citation Information: Journal of Perinatal Medicine, ISSN (Online) 1619-3997, ISSN (Print) 0300-5577, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/JPM.2008.057. Export Citation

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

R. Callec, C. Lamy, E. Perdriolle-Galet, C. Patte, B. Heude, and O. Morel
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2015, Volume 46, Number 2, Page 216
C. Lesmes, D. M. Gallo, J. Panaiotova, L. C. Poon, and K. H. Nicolaides
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2015, Page n/a
C. Fadigas, Y. Saiid, R. Gonzalez, L. C. Poon, and K. H. Nicolaides
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2015, Volume 45, Number 5, Page 559
S. Bakalis, M. Silva, R. Akolekar, L. C. Poon, and K. H. Nicolaides
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2015, Volume 45, Number 5, Page 551
A.E.P. Heazell, S.A. Worton, L.E. Higgins, E. Ingram, E.D. Johnstone, R.L. Jones, and C.P. Sibley
Placenta, 2015, Volume 36, Page S20
U. M. Schaefer-Graf, L. Wendt, D. A. Sacks, O. Kilavuz, B. Gaber, S. Metzner, K. Vetter, and M. Abou-Dakn
Diabetes Care, 2011, Volume 34, Number 1, Page 39
M. López, M. Palacio, A. Goncé, S. Hernàndez, F. J. Barranco, L. García, M. Loncà, J. O. Coll, E. Gratacós, and F. Figueras
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, 2015, Volume 34, Number 2, Page 223
Amir Aviram, Yariv Yogev, Ron Bardin, Israel Meizner, Arnon Wiznitzer, and Eran Hadar
Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, 2014, Page 1
Ahmed Al-Amin, Tania Hingston, Peter Mayall, Edward Araujo Júnior, Costa Fabrício Da Silva, and Deborah Friedman
Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, 2014, Page 1
Bang Hyun Lee, Tae Chul Park, and Hee Joong Lee
Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 2014, Volume 93, Number 8, Page 786
Stuart Campbell
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2014, Volume 43, Number 1, Page 3
Leah K. Hawkins, William T. Schnettler, Anna M. Modest, Michele R. Hacker, and Diana Rodriguez
Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, 2014, Volume 27, Number 12, Page 1228
Denis Walsh and Kerry Evans
Midwifery, 2014, Volume 30, Number 1, Page e1
Athena P. Souka, Ioannis Papastefanou, Athanasios Pilalis, Vasiliki Michalitsi, Perikles Panagopoulos, and Dimitrios Kassanos
Prenatal Diagnosis, 2013, Page 1
Karl J. Neff, Caroline Walsh, Brendan Kinsley, and Sean Daly
European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 2013, Volume 170, Number 1, Page 106
Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 2013, Volume 92, Number 2, Page 223
Giovanni Di Lorenzo, Lorenzo Monasta, Matteo Ceccarello, Vera Cecotti, and Giuseppina D’Ottavio
European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 2013, Volume 166, Number 2, Page 133
Farideh Dadkhah, Maryam Kashanian, Zahra Bonyad, and Tahereh Larijani
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research, 2013, Volume 39, Number 1, Page 170
M. de Bruin-Kooistra, M. P. Amelink-Verburg, S. E. Buitendijk, and G. P. Westert
International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 2012, Volume 24, Number 3, Page 301
A. P. Souka, I. Papastefanou, A. Pilalis, V. Michalitsi, and D. Kassanos
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2012, Volume 39, Number 5, Page 535
Alphonse Roex, Payam Nikpoor, Eva Eerd, Nicolette Hodyl, and Gus Dekker
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2012, Volume 52, Number 1, Page 78
YW Cheng, TN Sparks, RK Laros Jr, JM Nicholson, and AB Caughey
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 2012, Volume 119, Number 4, Page 402
Danny V. Colombara, Jason D. Soh, Luis A. Menacho, Melissa A. Schiff, and Susan D. Reed
Journal of Perinatal Medicine, 2011, Volume 39, Number 6
Paul A.O.M. De Reu, Herman P. Oosterbaan, Luc J.M. Smits, and Jan G. Nijhuis
Journal of Perinatal Medicine, 2011, Volume 39, Number 5
Judith T. Fullerton, Joyce B. Thompson, and Richard Severino
Midwifery, 2011, Volume 27, Number 4, Page 399
Begoña Pellicer, Sonia Herraiz, Antonio Leal, Carlos Simón, and Antonio Pellicer
Journal of Pregnancy, 2011, Volume 2011, Page 1
Paul A.O.M. De Reu, Herman P. Oosterbaan, Luc J.M. Smits, and Jan G. Nijhuis
Journal of Perinatal Medicine, 2010, Volume 38, Number 3

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in