Implication of third‐trimester screening accuracy for small‐for‐gestational age and additive value of third‐trimester growth‐trajectory indicators in predicting severe adverse perinatal outcome in low‐risk population: pragmatic secondary analysis of IRIS study

Abstract

What are the novel findings of this work?This study showed that false-positive small-forgestational-age screening findings do not necessarily lead to increased obstetric intervention. We found no evidence that using the third-trimester growth-trajectory measurements abdominal circumference crossing > 20 or > 50 centiles or estimated fetal weight crossing > 20 centiles is of additive value in identifying fetuses at risk of severe adverse perinatal outcome in a low-risk population. In addition, we found no convincing evidence that abdominal circumference growth velocity < 10% is of additive value in identifying fetuses at risk of severe adverse perinatal outcome. What is the clinical implications of this work?Obstetric-care professionals should be aware that using third-trimester growth-trajectory measurements for identification of abnormal fetal growth is not beneficial in populations remaining at low risk throughout pregnancy.

Prenatal prediction of adverse outcome using different charts and definitions of fetal growth restriction

“…However, reduced longitudinal fetal growth is likely to affect only a minority of pregnancies 49 . Moreover, it has been shown previously that growth velocity shows poor performance in predicting adverse outcome in a low‐risk population 50 . Owing to the retrospective nature of the study, the results of the ultrasound examinations were available to clinicians, so intervention bias should be acknowledged.…”