Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2016 Apr 5;4(4):CD011739.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011739.pub2.

Regimens of fetal surveillance of suspected large-for-gestational-age fetuses for improving health outcomes

Katherine A T Culliney  1 , Graham K Parry, Julie Brown, Caroline A Crowther
Affiliations
Review

Regimens of fetal surveillance of suspected large-for-gestational-age fetuses for improving health outcomes

Katherine A T Culliney et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Policies and protocols vary widely for fetal surveillance in a pregnancy where the fetus is suspected to be large-for-gestational-age (LGA). All ultimately culminate in decisions about the mode and timing of birth. LGA is known to be associated with increased risks to both the mother and baby. Interventions based on surveillance regimen findings may be associated with risks to the mother and baby.

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness or efficacy of different antenatal surveillance methods for the suspected LGA fetus on important health outcomes for the mother and baby.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 August 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (21 August 2015).

Selection criteria: Published and unpublished randomised, quasi-randomised and cluster-randomised trials comparing the effects of described antenatal fetal surveillance regimens for women with suspected LGA infants.

Data collection and analysis: We identified no studies that met the inclusion criteria for this review.

Main results: There are no included trials.

Authors' conclusions: We found no randomised controlled trials that assessed the effect of antenatal fetal surveillance regimens of a suspected LGA fetus on important health outcomes for the mother and baby.There has been a rise in the prevalence of LGA babies over the past few decades in many countries. Research is therefore required on regimens of antenatal surveillance of suspected LGA infants, in order to guide practice and improve the health outcomes for the mother and infant. In particular, randomised control trials to investigate whether serial antenatal clinic and ultrasound assessments of suspected LGA infants (including liquor volume and markers of fetal adiposity) would be useful, to assess whether surveillance methods improve health outcomes. In addition, as there are concerns that identifying suspected LGA fetuses may lead to unnecessary maternal anxiety, investigations and interventions, any such trial would need to assess the risks as well as benefits of regimens of fetal surveillance for suspected LGA fetuses.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Katherine AT Culliney: is employed by Waitemata District Health board, North Shore Hospital and Taranaki District health board, Taranaki Base Hospital. Graham K Parry: none known. Julie Brown: none known. Caroline A Crowther: none known.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

  • doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011739

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

Additional references

Aye 2010
    1. Aye SS, Miller V, Saxena S, Farhan M. Review: management of large‐for gestational‐age pregnancy in non‐diabetic women. Obstetrician and Gynaecologist 2010;12:250‐6.
Bergmann 2003
    1. Bergmann RL, Richter R, Bergmann KE, Plagemann A, Brauer M, Dudenhausen JW. Secular trends in neonatal macrosomia in Berlin: influences of potential determinants. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology 2003;17(3):244‐9. [PUBMED: 12839535] - PubMed
Boulet 2003
    1. Boulet SL, Alexander GR, Salihu HM, Pass MS. Macrosomic births in the united states: determinants, outcomes, and proposed grades of risk. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2003;188(5):1372. [PUBMED: 12748514] - PubMed
Campaigne 2007
    1. Campaigne A, Conway D. Dectection and prevention of macrosomia. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America 2007;34(2):309‐22. - PubMed
Chauhan 2005
    1. Chauhan SP, Grobman WA, Gherman RA, Chauhan VB, Chang G, Magann EF, et al. Suspicion and treatment of the macrosomic fetus: a review. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2005;193(2):332. [PUBMED: 16098852] - PubMed
De Reu 2008
    1. Reu PA, Smits LJ, Oosterbaan HP, Nijhuis JG. Value of a single early third trimester fetal biometry for the prediction of birth weight deviations in a low risk population. Journal of Perinatal Medicine 2008;36(4):324‐9. - PubMed
Delpapa 1991
    1. Delpapa EH, Mueller‐Heubach E. Pregnancy outcome following ultrasound diagnosis of macrosomia. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1991;78(3 Pt 1):340‐3. - PubMed
Ehrenberg 2004
    1. Ehrenberg HM, Mercer BM, Catalano PM. The influence of obesity and diabetes on the prevalence of macrosomia. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2004;191(3):964‐8. - PubMed
Esakoff 2009
    1. Esakoff TF, Cheng YW, Sparks TN, Caughey AB. The association between birthweight 4000 g or greater and perinatal outcomes in patients with and without gestational diabetes mellitus. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2009;200(6):672‐6. [PUBMED: 19376489 ] - PubMed
González 2013
    1. González González NL, Plasencia W, González Dávila E, Padrón E, García Hernández JA, Renzo GC, et al. The effect of customised growth charts on the identification of large for gestational age newborns. Journal of Maternal‐fetal & Neonatal Medicine 2013;26(1):62‐5. - PubMed
Grivell 2012
    1. Grivell RM, Wong L, Bhatia V. Regimens of fetal surveillance for impaired fetal growth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 6. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007113.pub3] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Gyselaers 2012
    1. Gyselaers W, Martens G. Increasing prevalence of macrosomia in Flanders, Belgium: an indicator of population health and a burden for the future. Facts, Views & Vision in OBGYN 2012;4(2):141‐3. - PMC - PubMed
Hadlock 1985
    1. Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Sharman RS, Deter RL, Park SK. Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements‐‐a prospective study. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1985;151(3):333‐7. [PUBMED: 3881966] - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Irion 1998
    1. Irion O, Boulvain M. Induction of labour for suspected fetal macrosomia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 1998, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000938] - DOI - PubMed
Ju 2009
    1. Ju H, Chadha Y, Donovan T, O'Rourke P. Fetal macrosomia and pregnancy outcomes. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 2009;49(5):504‐9. [PUBMED: 19780734] - PubMed
King 2012
    1. King JR, Korst LM, Miller DA, Ouzounian JG. Increased composite maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with ultrasonographically suspected fetal macrosomia. Journal of Maternal‐fetal & Neonatal Medicine 2012;25(10):1953‐9. [PUBMED: 22439605] - PubMed
Koyanagi 2013
    1. Koyanagi A, Zhang J, Dagvadori A, Hirayama F, Shibuya K, Souza JP, et al. Macrosomia in 23 developing countries: an analysis of multicountry, facility‐based, cross‐sectional survey. Lancet 2013;381(9865):476‐83. - PubMed
Lahmann 2009
    1. Lahmann PH, Wills RA, Coory M. Trends in birth size and macrosomia in Queensland, Australia, from 1988 to 2005. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology 2009;23(6):533‐41. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2009.01075.x.] - DOI - PubMed
Lee 2001
    1. Lee W, Deter RL, Ebersole JD, Huang R, Blanckaert K, Romero R. Birthweight prediction by 3D ultrasonography: fractional limb volume. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine 2001;20(12):1283–92. - PubMed
Li 2014
    1. Li G, Kong L, Li Z, Zhang L, Fan L, Zou L, et al. Prevalence of macrosomia and its risk factors in China: a multivariate survey based on birth data involving 10,1723 singleton term infants. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology 2014;28(4):345‐50. - PubMed
Morikawa 2013
    1. Morikawa M, Cho K, Yamada T, Yamada T, Sato S, Minakami H. Fetal macrosomia in Japanese women. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research 2013;39(5):960‐5. - PubMed
Orland 2012
    1. Orland J. Prevalence and Predictors of Macrosomia Newborn: Norther‐Norwegian Mother‐and‐Child Study [Masters Thesis]. University of Tromso, 2012.
Pundir 2009
    1. Pundir J, Sinha P. Non‐diabetic macrosomia: an obstetric dilemma. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2009;29(3):200‐5. - PubMed
RevMan 2014 [Computer program]
    1. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
Robert Peter 2012
    1. Robert Peter J, Ho JJ, Valliapan J, Sivasangari S. Symphysial fundal height (SFH) measurement in pregnancy for detecting abnormal fetal growth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 7. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008136.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Sadeh‐Mestechkin 2008
    1. Sadeh‐Mestechkin D, Walfisch A, Shachar R, Shoham‐Vardi I, Vardi H, Hallak M. Suspected macrosomia? Better not tell. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2008;278(3):225‐30. - PubMed
Stotland 2004
    1. Stotland N, Caughey A, Breed E, Escobar G. Risk factors and obstetric complications associated with macrosomia. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 2004;87(3):220‐6. - PubMed
Uotila 2000
    1. Uotila J, Dastidar P, Heinonen T, Ryymin P, Punnonen R, Laasonen E. Magnetic resonance imaging compared to ultrasonography in fetal weight and volume estimation in diabetic and normal pregnancy. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2000;79(4):255–9. - PubMed
Vora 2009
    1. Vora N, Bianchi DW. Genetic considerations in the prenatal diagnosis of overgrowth syndromes. Prenatal Diagnosis 2009;29(10):923‐9. [PUBMED: 19609940] - PMC - PubMed
Xu 2010
    1. Xu H, Simonet F, Luo ZC. Optimal birth weight percentile cut‐offs in defining small‐ or large‐for‐gestational‐age. Acta Paediatrica 2010;99(4):550‐5. - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Culliney 2015
    1. Culliney KAT, Parry GK, Brown J, Crowther CA. Regimens of fetal surveillance of suspected large‐for‐gestational‐age fetuses for improving health outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 6. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011739] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources

  NODES
Association 1
INTERN 2
twitter 2