Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, 6710B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7004, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.
Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2021 Jun;48(2):281-296. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2021.02.003.
Three modern cohort studies have an advantage over historical fetal growth references because they included diverse populations. Despite similar inclusion criteria, estimated fetal weight percentiles for gestational age varied among studies, which result in different proportions of fetuses as being classified below or above a cutoff point. A universal reference would make comparison of fetal growth simpler for clinical use and for comparison across populations but may misclassify small-for-gestational-age or large-for-gestational-age fetuses. It is important to know how a growth reference performs in a local population in relation to fetal morbidity and mortality when implementing in clinical practice.
三项现代队列研究具有优于历史胎儿生长参考的优势，因为它们纳入了不同的人群。尽管纳入标准相似，但不同研究的估计胎儿体重百分位数因妊娠年龄而异，这导致低于或高于截断点的胎儿比例不同。通用参考值将使临床使用和人群间比较胎儿生长更加简单，但可能会错误分类胎儿生长受限或胎儿过大。在临床实践中实施时，了解生长参考值在当地人群中与胎儿发病率和死亡率的关系非常重要。
