ObjectiveEstimated fetal weight (EFW) and fetal biometry are complementary measures used to screen for fetal growth disturbances. Our aim was to provide international EFW standards to complement the INTERGROWTH‐21st Fetal Growth Standards that are available for use worldwide.MethodsWomen with an accurate gestational‐age assessment, who were enrolled in the prospective, international, multicenter, population‐based Fetal Growth Longitudinal Study (FGLS) and INTERBIO‐21st Fetal Study (FS), two components of the INTERGROWTH‐21st Project, had ultrasound scans every 5 weeks from 9–14 weeks' until 40 weeks' gestation. At each visit, measurements of fetal head circumference (HC), biparietal diameter, occipitofrontal diameter, abdominal circumference (AC) and femur length (FL) were obtained blindly by dedicated research sonographers using standardized methods and identical ultrasound machines. Birth weight was measured within 12 h of delivery by dedicated research anthropometrists using standardized methods and identical electronic scales. Live babies without any congenital abnormality, who were born within 14 days of the last ultrasound scan, were selected for inclusion. As most births occurred at around 40 weeks' gestation, we constructed a bootstrap model selection and estimation procedure based on resampling of the complete dataset under an approximately uniform distribution of birth weight, thus enriching the sample size at extremes of fetal sizes, to achieve consistent estimates across the full range of fetal weight. We constructed reference centiles using second‐degree fractional polynomial models.ResultsOf the overall population, 2404 babies were born within 14 days of the last ultrasound scan. Mean time between the last scan and birth was 7.7 (range, 0–14) days and was uniformly distributed. Birth weight was best estimated as a function of AC and HC (without FL) as log(EFW) = 5.084820 − 54.06633 × (AC/100)3 − 95.80076 × (AC/100)3 × log(AC/100) + 3.136370 × (HC/100), where EFW is in g and AC and HC are in cm. All other measures, gestational age, symphysis–fundus height, amniotic fluid indices and interactions between biometric measures and gestational age, were not retained in the selection process because they did not improve the prediction of EFW. Applying the formula to FGLS biometric data (n = 4231) enabled gestational age‐specific EFW tables to be constructed. At term, the EFW centiles matched those of the INTERGROWTH‐21st Newborn Size Standards but, at < 37 weeks' gestation, the EFW centiles were, as expected, higher than those of babies born preterm. Comparing EFW cross‐sectional values with the INTERGROWTH‐21st Preterm Postnatal Growth Standards confirmed that preterm postnatal growth is a different biological process from intrauterine growth.ConclusionsWe provide an assessment of EFW, as an adjunct to routine ultrasound biometry, from 22 to 40 weeks' gestation. However, we strongly encourage clinicians to evaluate fetal growth using separate biometric measures such as HC and AC, as well as EFW, to...

Background Reliable ultrasound charts are necessary for the prenatal assessment of fetal size, yet there is a wide variation of methodologies for the creation of such charts.Objective To evaluate the methodological quality of studies of fetal biometry using a set of predefined quality criteria of study design, statistical analysis and reporting methods.Search strategy Electronic searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL, and references of retrieved articles.Selection criteria Observational studies whose primary aim was to create ultrasound size charts for bi-parietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference and femur length in fetuses from singleton pregnancies.Data collection and analysis Studies were scored against a predefined set of independently agreed methodological criteria and an overall quality score was given to each study. Multiple regression analysis between quality scores and study characteristics was performed.Main results Eighty-three studies met the inclusion criteria. The highest potential for bias was noted in the following fields: 'Inclusion/exclusion criteria', as none of the studies defined a rigorous set of antenatal or fetal conditions which should be excluded from analysis; 'Ultrasound quality control measures', as no study demonstrated a comprehensive quality assurance strategy; and 'Sample size calculation', which was apparent in six studies only. On multiple regression analysis, there was a positive correlation between quality scores and year of publication: quality has improved with time, yet considerable heterogeneity in study methodology is still observed today.Conclusions There is considerable methodological heterogeneity in studies of fetal biometry. Standardisation of methodologies is necessary in order to make correct interpretations and comparisons between different charts. A checklist of recommended methodologies is proposed.

ObjeCtiveTo describe patterns in maternal gestational weight gain (GWG) in healthy pregnancies with good maternal and perinatal outcomes. DesignProspective longitudinal observational study. Main OutCOMe MeasuresMaternal weight measured with standardised methods and identical equipment every five weeks (plus/minus one week) from the first antenatal visit (<14 weeks' gestation) to delivery. After confirmation that data from the study sites could be pooled, a multilevel, linear regression analysis accounting for repeated measures, adjusted for gestational age, was applied to produce the GWG values. results 13 108 pregnant women at <14 weeks' gestation were screened, and 4607 met the eligibility criteria, provided consent, and were enrolled. The variance within sites (59.6%) was six times higher than the variance between sites (9.6%). The mean GWGs were 1.64 kg, 2.86 kg, 2.86 kg, 2.59 kg, and 2.56 kg for the gestational age windows 14-18 +6 weeks, 19-23 +6 weeks, 24-28 +6 weeks, 29-33 +6 weeks, and 34-40 +0 weeks, respectively. Total mean weight gain at 40 weeks' gestation was 13.7 (SD 4.5) kg for 3097 eligible women with a normal BMI in the first trimester. Of all the weight measurements, 71.7% (10 639/14 846) and 94.9% (14 085/14 846) fell within the expected 1 SD and 2 SD thresholds, respectively. Data were used to determine fitted 3rd, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th, and 97th smoothed GWG centiles by exact week of gestation, with equations for the mean and standard deviation to calculate any desired centiles according to gestational age in exact weeks. COnClusiOnsWeight gain in pregnancy is similar across the eight populations studied. Therefore, the standards generated in this study of healthy, well nourished women may be used to guide recommendations on optimal gestational weight gain worldwide.

Meticulous standardisation and ongoing monitoring of adherence to measurement protocols during data collection are essential to ensure consistency and to minimise systematic error in multicentre studies. Strict ultrasound fetal biometric measurement protocols are used in the st Project so that data of the highest quality from different centres can be compared and potentially pooled. A central Ultrasound Quality Unit (USQU) has been set up to oversee this process. After initial training and standardisation, the USQU monitors the performance of all ultrasonographers involved in the project by continuously assessing the quality of the images and the consistency of the measurements produced. Ultrasonographers are identified when they exceed preset maximum allowable differences. Corrective action is then taken in the form of retraining or simply advice regarding changes in practice. This paper describes the procedures used, which can form a model for research settings involving ultrasound measurements.