Cited by 37Pregnancy and preeclampsia studiesPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsMaternal and Neonatal Healthcare

Implementing the INTERGROWTH‐21st fetal growth standards in France: a ‘flash study’ of the College Français d'Echographie Foetale (CFEF)

Open access
Stirnemann, J. J., Fries, N., Bessis, R., Fontanges, M., Mangione, R., Salomon, L. J.·2017·Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

Objectives: To assess potential differences in fetal size between the French population and the international population from the INTERGROWTH‐21 st (IG‐21 st) Project and to measure the impact of switching to the IG‐21 st reference standards for fetal size. Methods: This was a nationwide cross‐sectional study of fetal ultrasound biometry. Low‐risk singleton pregnancies were recruited prospectively within the network of the national French College of Fetal Ultrasound, CFEF, over a 6‐week period. Further selection was performed based on the criteria of the IG‐21 st Project in order to obtain a comparable population. Head circumference (HC) was used as the main fat‐free skeletal measure of growth for comparison of French fetal size with that of the IG‐21 st population. The impact of switching to the IG‐21 st fetal growth standards was quantified by comparing Z‐scores calculated using the IG‐21 st standards with those calculated using locally derived reference ranges for HC, abdominal circumference (AC) and femur length (FL). Results: Following selection, 4858 cases were analyzed. The distribution of HC demonstrated clear similarity between our French population and the IG‐21 st population: our observed centile curves closely matched those of IG‐21 st and the Z‐scores were close to 0 across gestational age. The IG‐21 st standards performed as well as did locally derived charts in terms of screening for small‐for‐gestational age by AC, while they identified significantly fewer small FL values than were expected and than did the locally derived charts. Conclusions: Under strict selection criteria, fetal size in France is similar to that of the international population used in the IG‐21 st Project. The discrepancies in FL are unlikely to impact on prenatal management. Therefore, switching from locally derived reference ranges to the IG‐21 st standards appears to be a safe option. Copyright © 2016 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/uog.17223

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Salomon LJ. [How to date pregnancy?]. J Gynécologie Obstétrique Biol Reprod 2011; 40: 726-733.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stirnemann, J. J., Fries, N., Bessis, R., Fontanges, M., Mangione, R., & Salomon, L. J.
Affiliations
  • Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades (FR)
  • Collège Français d'Echographie Foetale, CFEF France
Corresponding author
Salomon, L. J.
Venue
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-04
Volume
49
Issue
4
Pages
487-492
ISSN
  • 0960-7692 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-0705
OpenAlex
W2508520686
Cited by
37
References
23
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5
FWCI
4.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Pregnancy and preeclampsia studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
Keywords
INTERGROWTH-21st, fetal growth standards, ultrasound fetal biometry, head circumference, femur length, abdominal circumference, reference values, French population, low-risk singleton pregnancy, Z-score
MeSH terms
Cephalometry, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, France, Gestational Age, Head, Humans, Pregnancy, Prenatal Diagnosis, Prospective Studies, Ultrasonography, Prenatal, Fetal Development, Body Size, Growth Charts

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review