MedElevator
Войти в исследования BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026
Internal Consistency of the Hadlock Estimated Fetal Weight Reference: Methodological Analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Adu-Bredu Theophilus K, Twumasi Clement, Mathewlynn Sam, Impey Lawrence, Ioannou Christos
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess the internal consistency of the Hadlock normal range for estimated fetal weight (EFW) and its clinical implications.
DESIGN: Methodological analysis and retrospective observational audit.
SETTING: Tertiary maternity hospital in Oxford, UK.
POPULATION: Women with a non-anomalous singleton pregnancy.
METHODS: Reanalysis of the original Hadlock reference EFW chart using functional data analysis (FDA) and penalised functional regression (PFFR-GAM), and systematic bias assessment across gestation. Retrospective EFW centile analysis in a population of pregnancies undergoing a growth scan between 35 + 0 and 36 + 6 weeks, calculating the EFW centile using both the published reference chart (chart-derived centile) and the reported regression equation (equation-derived centile).
OUTCOME MEASURES: Agreement between chart-derived and equation-derived centiles and the corresponding differences in classification of fetuses below the 3rd and 10th centiles.
RESULTS: There is a statistically significant disparity between the chart-derived and equation-derived centiles, most pronounced in the 3rd and 10th centiles where clinical implications are critical. The 3rd and 10th chart-derived centiles approximately correspond to the 1st and 6th equation-derived centiles. Conversely, the equation-derived 10th centile corresponds to the chart-derived 17th centile. In a population of 21 874 pregnancies undergoing a growth scan between 35 + 0 and 36 + 6 weeks, the chart classified 4.2% as below the 10th centile, compared with 7.2% using the equation, with an absolute difference of 3.0% (95% CI 2.8%-3.3%; McNemar's test; p < 0.001). Also, the chart classified 0.8% under the 3rd centile, compared with 2.3% using the equation, with an absolute difference of 1.5% (95% CI 1.3%-1.7%; McNemar's test; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Systematic disparity exists between the published chart- and equation-derived centiles in the original Hadlock growth reference. The equation-derived centiles are closer to the expected nominal proportions of our population, whereas the chart-derived centiles significantly underestimate the incidence of small for gestational age.
DESIGN: Methodological analysis and retrospective observational audit.
SETTING: Tertiary maternity hospital in Oxford, UK.
POPULATION: Women with a non-anomalous singleton pregnancy.
METHODS: Reanalysis of the original Hadlock reference EFW chart using functional data analysis (FDA) and penalised functional regression (PFFR-GAM), and systematic bias assessment across gestation. Retrospective EFW centile analysis in a population of pregnancies undergoing a growth scan between 35 + 0 and 36 + 6 weeks, calculating the EFW centile using both the published reference chart (chart-derived centile) and the reported regression equation (equation-derived centile).
OUTCOME MEASURES: Agreement between chart-derived and equation-derived centiles and the corresponding differences in classification of fetuses below the 3rd and 10th centiles.
RESULTS: There is a statistically significant disparity between the chart-derived and equation-derived centiles, most pronounced in the 3rd and 10th centiles where clinical implications are critical. The 3rd and 10th chart-derived centiles approximately correspond to the 1st and 6th equation-derived centiles. Conversely, the equation-derived 10th centile corresponds to the chart-derived 17th centile. In a population of 21 874 pregnancies undergoing a growth scan between 35 + 0 and 36 + 6 weeks, the chart classified 4.2% as below the 10th centile, compared with 7.2% using the equation, with an absolute difference of 3.0% (95% CI 2.8%-3.3%; McNemar's test; p < 0.001). Also, the chart classified 0.8% under the 3rd centile, compared with 2.3% using the equation, with an absolute difference of 1.5% (95% CI 1.3%-1.7%; McNemar's test; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Systematic disparity exists between the published chart- and equation-derived centiles in the original Hadlock growth reference. The equation-derived centiles are closer to the expected nominal proportions of our population, whereas the chart-derived centiles significantly underestimate the incidence of small for gestational age.