Vol. 1, Issue 4, / October-December 2000
(Original Article, pages 4-10)

Parvin Niknafs Corresponding Author
- Obstetrics ultrasound, Shahrood University of Medical Sciences., Shahrood, Iran
John Sibbald
- Midwifery and Physiology, Wollongong University, Wollongong, Australia

Received: 6/20/2000 Accepted: 10/4/2000 - Publisher : Avicenna Research Institute

Related Articles


Other Format



The main objective of this study was to review the diagnostic accuracy of different single ultrasonographic parameters in predicting intrauterine growth restricted foetuses as defined by Ponderal Index at birth. The study sample composed of two sets of data from Iran and Australia. The Iranian samples consisted of 296 Iranian women. All the study women received prenatal care and delivered at Fatemieh Hospital in Shahrood, Iran. The data from 200 Australian fetuses were obtained from the ultrasound section at the Wollongong Hospital in Australia. Ultrasonographic measurements of Biparietal diameter (BPD), femur length (FL), head circumference (HC), abdominal circumference (AC), amniotic fluid index (AFI) and Doppler from umbilical arteries (S/D ratio) were obtained. Only those pregnancies were included in which the estimated date of delivery (EDD) by LMP (last menstrual period) agreed within 14 days with the estimated date of delivery determined by the initial ultrasound examination. Sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for single proposed ultrasound parameters in the both Iranian and Australian samples. When different variables are compared, with a cut off point at or below the 10th percentile, AC and HC had the highest sensitivities in the Australian sample while AC was the most sensitive parameter for IUGR detection in the Iranian sample. BPD has a reasonably high sensitivity at this threshold. The AFI ratio had the lowest sensitivity in predicting IUGR in the Australian sample. Positive predictive values were low in all of the parameters in both the Iranian and Australian samples. Our results indicate that reduced AC was the best single parameter in discriminating between IUGR and non-IUGR fetuses with the highest sensitivity among the proposed parameters in the both Iranian and Australian sample. However the positive predictive value of this parameter is low. This means that a high number of false positive cases is detected using each parameter which reduces the usefulness of identification. Other ultrasound obstetrical parameters may also have a reasonable level of sensitivity, however the positive predictive value of all parameters is low. On the whole our results show that although the examined ultrasonographic criteria may detect a group of fetuses that need close antepartum surveillance, none of these parameters is appropriate enough to be used in isolation in clinical practice. Using single ultrasound parameters does not have high sensitivity and positive predictive values in detection of fetal growth restriction. This limits both accuracy and utility of these tests in the detection of IUGR fetuses.

Keywords: Pregnancy, Ultrasonographic parameters, IUGR, Fetus growth

To cite this article:


  1. Divon MY, Foetal growth restriction,1st edn. Lippincott-Raven Publishers,Philadelphia. 1997, pp:1-50.
  2. Barker D, Bull AR, Osmond.C, Simmonds SJ. Foetal and placental size and risk of hypertension in adult life. BMJ. 1990, 301: 259-301.
  3. Cater J, Gill M. The follow up study, medical aspects, in low birth weight, a medical, physiological and social study, First edn. Illsely R Mitchell RG (eds.), San Francisco, Chilchester. 1984, 191:205.
  4. Owen P, Khan K. Foetal growth velocity in the prediction of intrauterine growth retardation in a low risk population, .Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998, 105:536-40.
  5. James D, Parker M, Smoleniec JS, Karlson L. Comprehensive foetal assessment with three ultrasonographic characteristics. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992, 166:1487-95.
  6. Skovron MI, Berkovitz GS, Lapinski R, Persson LH. Evaluation of early third trimester ultrasound screening for intra-uterine growth retardation. J Ultrasound Med. 1991, 10:153-9.
  7. Villar J, Deonis M, Kestler E. The difference neonatal morbidity of the intra-uterine growth retardation syndrome, Am J Obstet Gynaecol. 1990, 163:151-7.
  8. Guashino S, Spillino A, Stola E, Ramakers A. The significance of the Ponderal index as a prognosis factor in low birth weight population. Biol Research Pregnancy. 1986, 7:121-7.
  9. Khoury M, Berg C J, Calle E. The Ponderal index in term newborn siblings. Am J of Epidemiol. 1990, 132:576-83.
  10. Yau K I, Chang M. Weight to length ratio-a good parameter for determining nutritional status in preterm and full term newborns. Acta Paediatr. 1993, 82:427-9.
  11. Deter RL, Harrist RB, Hadlock FP, Carpenter R J. Foetal head and abdominal circumferences, a clinical re-evaluation of the relationship to menstrual age. J Clin Ultrasound. 1982, 10:365-72.
  12. Hadlock FP, Deter RL, Harris RB, Park SE. Foetal biparietal diameter, Rationale choice of plane of section for sonographic measurement. Am J Roentgenology. 1982, 138:181-4.
  13. Warda AH, Deter RL, Rossavik I, Gohari P. Foetal femur length, a critical re-evaluation of the relationship to menstrual age, Obstet Gynecol. 1985, 66:69-75.
  14. Hadlock FP, Deter RL, Harrist RB, Park SK. Foetal biparietal diameter: A critical re-evaluation of the relationship to menstrual age by means of real time ultrasound. J Ultrasound Med. 1982, 1:97-104.
  15. Moore TR, Cayle G E. The amniotic fluid index in normal pregnancy, Am J Obstet and Gynecol. 1990, 162: 1168-73.
  16. Fogarty P. Continuous wave Doppler flow velocity waveforms from the umbilical artery in normal pregnancy. J Paediat Med. 1990, 18:51-3.
  17. Brown HL, Miller JM Gabert HA, Kissling G. Ultrasonic recognition the small-for gestational fetus. Obstet Gynecol. 1987, 60: 693-6.
  18. Nielson JP, Munjanja SP, Whitfield CR Screening for small for dates fetuses: A controlled trial. Br M J. 1984, 289:1179-83.
  19. David M, Tagliavini G, Pilu G, Rudenholz A. Receiver-operator characteristic curves for the ultrasonographic prediction of small-for gestational age fetuses in low risk pregnancies, Am J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996, 174:1037-42.
  20. Meyer WJ, Gauthier D. Ramakrishnan V, Sipos J. Ultrasonographic detection of abnormal foetal growth with the gestational age-independent, transverse cerebellar diameter/abdominal circumference ratio. Am J Obstet Gynaecol. 1994, 171: 1057-63.
  21. Crane JP, Kopta M.M. Comparative newborn antropometric data in symmetric versus asymmetric intra-uterine growth retardation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1980, 138: 518-22.
  22. Bewley S, Cooper D, Campbell S. Doppler investigation of uteroplacental circulation in the second trimester. Br J Obstet and Gynecol. 1991, 98: 871-873.
  23. Newnham JP, O’dea MR, Reid K, Diepeveen DA. Doppler flow velocity waveform analysis in high risk pregnancies: A randomised controlled trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1991, 98:956-63.
  24. Miller JM, Gabert HA. Comparison of dynamic and Doppler ultrasonography for the diagnosis of the small for gestational age fetus. Am J Obstet and Gynaecol. 1992, 166:1820-26.


Home | About Us | Current Issue | Past Issues | Submit a Manuscript | Instructions for Authors | Subscribe | Search | Contact Us

"Journal of Reproduction & Infertility" is owned, published, and managed by Avicenna Research Institute .
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution –NonCommercial 4.0 International License which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited properly.

Journal of Reproductoin and Infertility (JRI) is a member of COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION ETHICS . Verify here .

©2024 - eISSN : 2251-676X, ISSN : 2228-5482, For any comments and questions please contact us.