• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

丹麦全国队列研究:胎儿医学基金会双胞胎胎儿生长图表的验证

Validation of Fetal Medicine Foundation charts for fetal growth in twins: nationwide Danish cohort study.

作者信息

Kristensen S E, Wright A, Wright D, Gadsbøll K, Ekelund C K, Sandager P, Jørgensen F S, Hoseth E, Sperling L, Zingenberg H J, Sundberg K, McLennan A, Nicolaides K H, Petersen O B

机构信息

Center for Fetal Medicine, Pregnancy and Ultrasound, Department of Gynecology, Fertility and Obstetrics, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

出版信息

Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2024 Dec;64(6):730-738. doi: 10.1002/uog.29125. Epub 2024 Oct 27.

DOI:10.1002/uog.29125
PMID:39462797
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11609905/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To assess the validity of the Fetal Medicine Foundation (FMF) chorionicity-specific models for fetal growth in twin pregnancy.

METHODS

This was an external validation study of the FMF models using a nationwide Danish cohort of twin pregnancies. The cohort included all dichorionic (DC) and monochorionic diamniotic (MCDA) twin pregnancies with an estimated delivery date between 2008 and 2018, which satisfied the following inclusion criteria: two live fetuses at the first-trimester ultrasound scan (11-14 weeks' gestation); biometric measurements available for the calculation of estimated fetal weight (EFW) using the Hadlock-3 formula; and delivery of two liveborn infants. Validation involved assessing the distributional properties of the models and estimating the mean EFW Z-score deviations. Additionally, the models were applied to pregnancies that delivered preterm and attended non-scheduled visits (complicated pregnancies).

RESULTS

Overall, 8542 DC and 1675 MCDA twin pregnancies met the inclusion criteria. In DC twins, 17 084 fetuses were evaluated at a total of 95 346 ultrasound scans, of which 44.5% were performed at scheduled visits in pregnancies carried to 37 + 0 weeks or later. The median number of growth scans per DC twin fetus from 20 + 0 weeks onwards was four. The model showed good agreement with the validation cohort for scheduled visits in DC twins delivered at 37 + 0 weeks or later (mean ± SD EFW Z-score, -0.14 ± 1.05). In MCDA twins, 3350 fetuses underwent 31 632 eligible ultrasound scans, of which 59.5% were performed at scheduled visits in pregnancies carried to 36 + 0 weeks or later. The median number of growth scans per MCDA twin fetus from 16 + 0 weeks onwards was 10. The model showed favorable agreement with the validation cohort for scheduled visits in MCDA twins delivered at 36 + 0 weeks or later (mean ± SD EFW Z-score, -0.09 ± 1.01). Non-scheduled visits and preterm delivery before 37 + 0 weeks for DC twins and before 36 + 0 weeks for MCDA twins corresponded with smaller weight estimates, which was consistent with the study's definition of complicated pregnancy.

CONCLUSIONS

The FMF models provide a good fit for EFW measurements in our Danish national cohort of uncomplicated twin pregnancies assessed at routine scans. Therefore, the FMF models establish robust criteria for subsequent investigations and potential clinical applications. Future research should focus on exploring the consequences of clinical implementation, particularly regarding the identification of twins that are small-for-gestational age, as they are especially susceptible to adverse perinatal outcome. © 2024 The Author(s). Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

摘要

目的

评估胎儿医学基金会(FMF)双胎妊娠中绒毛膜性特异性胎儿生长模型的有效性。

方法

这是一项对FMF模型进行的外部验证研究,使用丹麦全国范围内的双胎妊娠队列。该队列包括2008年至2018年期间所有估计分娩日期的双绒毛膜(DC)和单绒毛膜双羊膜囊(MCDA)双胎妊娠,符合以下纳入标准:孕早期超声扫描(妊娠11 - 14周)时有两个存活胎儿;有生物测量数据可用于使用Hadlock-3公式计算估计胎儿体重(EFW);分娩出两个活产婴儿。验证包括评估模型的分布特性并估计平均EFW Z评分偏差。此外,将模型应用于早产和进行非计划就诊的妊娠(复杂妊娠)。

结果

总体而言,8542例DC和1675例MCDA双胎妊娠符合纳入标准。在DC双胎中,对17084例胎儿进行了总共95346次超声扫描,其中44.5%是在妊娠至37 + 0周或更晚时的计划就诊中进行的。从20 + 0周起,每个DC双胎胎儿的生长扫描中位数为4次。该模型与在37 + 0周或更晚分娩的DC双胎的计划就诊验证队列显示出良好的一致性(平均±标准差EFW Z评分,-0.14±1.05)。在MCDA双胎中,3350例胎儿接受了31632次符合条件的超声扫描,其中59.5%是在妊娠至36 + 0周或更晚时的计划就诊中进行的。从16 + 0周起,每个MCDA双胎胎儿的生长扫描中位数为10次。该模型与在36 + 0周或更晚分娩的MCDA双胎的计划就诊验证队列显示出良好的一致性(平均±标准差EFW Z评分,-0.09±1.01)。DC双胎在37 + 0周前的非计划就诊和早产以及MCDA双胎在36 + 0周前的非计划就诊和早产与较小的体重估计值相对应,这与该研究对复杂妊娠的定义一致。

结论

FMF模型非常适合在我们丹麦全国队列中通过常规扫描评估的无并发症双胎妊娠的EFW测量。因此,FMF模型为后续研究和潜在临床应用建立了可靠的标准。未来的研究应侧重于探索临床实施的后果,特别是关于识别小于胎龄的双胎,因为他们特别容易出现不良围产期结局。© 2024作者。《超声妇产科》由John Wiley & Sons Ltd代表国际妇产科超声学会出版。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fda3/11609905/0c5392ef00e3/UOG-64-730-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fda3/11609905/6e54e180e973/UOG-64-730-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fda3/11609905/fa44795823de/UOG-64-730-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fda3/11609905/f4dd4bdb4414/UOG-64-730-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fda3/11609905/0c5392ef00e3/UOG-64-730-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fda3/11609905/6e54e180e973/UOG-64-730-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fda3/11609905/fa44795823de/UOG-64-730-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fda3/11609905/f4dd4bdb4414/UOG-64-730-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fda3/11609905/0c5392ef00e3/UOG-64-730-g001.jpg

相似文献

1
Validation of Fetal Medicine Foundation charts for fetal growth in twins: nationwide Danish cohort study.丹麦全国队列研究:胎儿医学基金会双胞胎胎儿生长图表的验证
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2024 Dec;64(6):730-738. doi: 10.1002/uog.29125. Epub 2024 Oct 27.
2
Fetal biometry reference ranges derived from prospective twin population and evaluation of adverse perinatal outcome.源自前瞻性双胎人群的胎儿生物测量参考范围及围产期不良结局评估。
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2025 Apr;65(4):436-446. doi: 10.1002/uog.29190. Epub 2025 Feb 27.
3
Twin chorionicity-specific population birth-weight charts adjusted for estimated fetal weight.按估计胎儿体重校正的双绒毛膜性特有群体出生体重图表。
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Sep;58(3):439-449. doi: 10.1002/uog.23606.
4
Fetal Medicine Foundation charts for fetal growth in twins.胎儿医学基金会双胞胎胎儿生长图表。
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2024 Feb;63(2):181-188. doi: 10.1002/uog.27514.
5
Intertwin discordance in fetal size at 11-13 weeks' gestation and pregnancy outcome.11-13 孕周胎儿大小的相间不协调性与妊娠结局。
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb;55(2):189-197. doi: 10.1002/uog.21923.
6
Development and validation of an ultrasound-based estimated fetal weight reference for Chinese twin pregnancy: a retrospective cohort study.基于超声的中国双胎妊娠胎儿估重参考值的建立与验证:一项回顾性队列研究。
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2024 Nov 4;24(1):718. doi: 10.1186/s12884-024-06924-y.
7
Outcome of twin pregnancy with two live fetuses at 11-13 weeks' gestation.11-13 孕周双活胎妊娠结局。
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jan;55(1):32-38. doi: 10.1002/uog.21892. Epub 2019 Dec 13.
8
Predictive accuracy of Southwest Thames Obstetric Research Collaborative (STORK) chorionicity-specific twin growth charts for stillbirth: a validation study.西南泰晤士河产科研究协作组(STORK)绒毛膜性特异性双胎生长图表预测死胎的准确性:验证研究。
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Feb;53(2):193-199. doi: 10.1002/uog.19069.
9
Twin pregnancy with two live fetuses at 11-13 weeks: effect of one fetal death on pregnancy outcome.11-13 周双胎妊娠且存活两胎儿:一胎死亡对妊娠结局的影响。
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Apr;55(4):482-488. doi: 10.1002/uog.21925. Epub 2020 Mar 6.
10
Increased nuchal translucency at 11-13 weeks' gestation and outcome in twin pregnancy.11-13 孕周胎儿颈项透明层增厚与双胎妊娠结局的关系。
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Mar;55(3):318-325. doi: 10.1002/uog.21935. Epub 2020 Feb 13.

引用本文的文献

1
The Pre-Twin Screen Consortium proposal for fetal structural anomalies evaluation across all three trimesters in twin pregnancies.双胎妊娠全孕期胎儿结构异常评估的双胎妊娠前期筛查联盟提案。
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2025 May 5. doi: 10.1007/s00404-025-08044-0.

本文引用的文献

1
Fetal Medicine Foundation charts for fetal growth in twins.胎儿医学基金会双胞胎胎儿生长图表。
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2024 Feb;63(2):181-188. doi: 10.1002/uog.27514.
2
Incidence of neonatal morbidity in small-for-gestational-age twins based on singleton and twin charts.基于单胎和双胎图表的小于胎龄儿双胎新生儿发病率。
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2024 Mar;63(3):365-370. doi: 10.1002/uog.27499.
3
Risks and pregnancy outcome after fetal reduction in dichorionic twin pregnancies: a Danish national retrospective cohort study.
双绒毛膜双胎妊娠减胎后的风险及妊娠结局:一项丹麦全国性回顾性队列研究
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2023 May;228(5):590.e1-590.e12. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.10.028. Epub 2022 Oct 29.
4
Should twin-specific growth charts be used to assess fetal growth in twin pregnancies?是否应使用双胎特异性生长曲线评估双胎妊娠胎儿的生长情况?
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Jul;227(1):10-28. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.01.027. Epub 2022 Jan 31.
5
Adverse neonatal outcome in twin pregnancy complicated by small-for-gestational age: twin vs singleton reference charts.小胎龄儿双胎妊娠的不良新生儿结局:双胎与单胎参考图表。
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Mar;59(3):377-384. doi: 10.1002/uog.23764.
6
Review of International Clinical Guidelines Related to Prenatal Screening during Monochorionic Pregnancies.单绒毛膜妊娠期间产前筛查相关国际临床指南综述
J Clin Med. 2021 Mar 8;10(5):1128. doi: 10.3390/jcm10051128.
7
Twin Peaks: more twinning in humans than ever before.人类双胞胎比以往任何时候都多。
Hum Reprod. 2021 May 17;36(6):1666-1673. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deab029.
8
Twin chorionicity-specific population birth-weight charts adjusted for estimated fetal weight.按估计胎儿体重校正的双绒毛膜性特有群体出生体重图表。
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Sep;58(3):439-449. doi: 10.1002/uog.23606.
9
Management of Twin Pregnancies: A Comparative Review of National and International Guidelines.双胎妊娠管理:国家和国际指南的比较综述。
Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2020 Jul;75(7):419-430. doi: 10.1097/OGX.0000000000000803.
10
Early vaginal progesterone versus placebo in twin pregnancies for the prevention of spontaneous preterm birth: a randomized, double-blind trial.早孕期阴道用孕激素与安慰剂用于预防双胎妊娠自发性早产的随机、双盲试验。
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Jan;224(1):86.e1-86.e19. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.06.050. Epub 2020 Jun 26.