{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,17]],"date-time":"2026-08-17T14:49:11Z","timestamp":1786978151414,"version":"build-2736575974"},"reference-count":29,"publisher":"Wiley","issue":"3","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2018,9,23]],"date-time":"2018-09-23T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1537660800000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/termsAndConditions#vor"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["onlinelibrary.wiley.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["J of Ultrasound Medicine"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2019,3]]},"abstract":"<jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Objectives<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>To compare a traditional ultrasound (US) method for estimated fetal weight (EFW) calculation and fetal growth restriction diagnosis with 2 newer methods for the prediction of small for gestational age (SGA) at birth.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      We reviewed deliveries at our institution from January 1, 2013, to March 31, 2017. Singleton, nonanomalous, well\u2010dated fetuses with a US examination within 2 weeks of delivery were included. Estimated fetal weights and percentiles were calculated by a traditional method (Hadlock et al;\n                      <jats:italic>Radiology<\/jats:italic>\n                      1991; 181:129\u2013133) and 2 newer methods: Intergrowth\u201021st (INTG;\n                      <jats:italic>Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol<\/jats:italic>\n                      2017; 49:478\u2013486) and Salomon et al (\n                      <jats:italic>Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol<\/jats:italic>\n                      2007; 29:550\u2013555). We calculated each method's test characteristics to predict SGA (birth weight\u2009&lt;\u200910th percentile) using both traditional (EFW\u2009&lt;\u200910th percentile) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC)\u2010derived fetal growth restriction cutoffs. Mean percentile discrepancies between EFW and birth weight measurements were calculated to compare method accuracy. We hypothesized that the INTG and Salomon methods would have superior SGA prediction compared with the Hadlock method.\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      Of 831 pregnancies with a US examination within 2 weeks of delivery, 138 (16.7%) were SGA at birth. Hadlock had the smallest US\u2013birth weight percentile discrepancy (\n                      <jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009&lt;\u2009.001 versus both INTG and Salomon). When comparing ROC curves, the Hadlock and INTG methods performed comparably, with areas under the curve of 0.91 and 0.90 (\n                      <jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009=\u2009.08) and optimal EFW cutoffs of the 15th and 22nd percentiles, respectively. The Salomon method performed less well, with an area under the curve of 0.82 (\n                      <jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009&lt;\u2009.001 versus both Hadlock and INTG methods).\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusions<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>In our study cohort, the Hadlock method predicted the birth weight percentile more accurately than the INTG or Salomon methods and performed comparably with INTG to predict SGA when ROC\u2010derived cutoffs were used.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1002\/jum.14725","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2018,9,23]],"date-time":"2018-09-23T08:33:48Z","timestamp":1537691628000},"page":"587-596","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":48,"title":["The Hadlock Method Is Superior to Newer Methods for the Prediction of the Birth Weight Percentile"],"prefix":"10.1002","volume":"38","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0003-2187-3428","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Nathan R.","family":"Blue","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal\u2010Fetal Medicine University of New Mexico  Albuquerque New Mexico USA"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Mariam","family":"Savabi","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal\u2010Fetal Medicine University of New Mexico  Albuquerque New Mexico USA"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Meghan E","family":"Beddow","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal\u2010Fetal Medicine University of New Mexico  Albuquerque New Mexico USA"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Vivek R.","family":"Katukuri","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal\u2010Fetal Medicine University of New Mexico  Albuquerque New Mexico USA"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Cody M.","family":"Fritts","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal\u2010Fetal Medicine University of New Mexico  Albuquerque New Mexico USA"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Luis A.","family":"Izquierdo","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal\u2010Fetal Medicine University of New Mexico  Albuquerque New Mexico USA"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Conrad R.","family":"Chao","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal\u2010Fetal Medicine University of New Mexico  Albuquerque New Mexico USA"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"311","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2018,9,23]]},"reference":[{"key":"e_1_2_6_2_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1056\/NEJM199904223401603"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_3_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/0140-6736(93)91224-A"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_4_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/01.AOG.0000429658.85846.f9"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_5_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.7863\/jum.2009.28.8.1019"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_6_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1159\/000365814"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_7_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1002\/pd.4482"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_8_1","first-page":"283","article-title":"Evaluation of fetal weight estimation formulas in assessing small\u2010for\u2010gestational\u2010age fetuses","volume":"37","author":"Barel O","year":"2016","journal-title":"Ultraschall Med"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_9_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1159\/000328693"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_10_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/0002-9378(76)90748-1"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_11_1","first-page":"624","article-title":"Fetal growth and perinatal viability in California","volume":"59","author":"Williams RL","year":"1982","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_12_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1542\/peds.2009-0913"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_13_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1542\/peds.32.5.793"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_14_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/0029-7844(95)00386-X"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_15_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/0002-9378(93)90681-8"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_16_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2015.08.032"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_17_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1148\/radiology.181.1.1887021"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_18_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1002\/uog.17347"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_19_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1002\/uog.4019"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_20_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0000000000001815"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_21_1","first-page":"45","article-title":"The LMS method for constructing normalized growth standards","volume":"44","author":"Cole TJ","year":"1990","journal-title":"Eur J Clin Nutr"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_22_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1002\/1097-0142(1950)3:1<32::AID-CNCR2820030106>3.0.CO;2-3"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_23_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.2307\/2531595"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_24_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1002\/sim.1017"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_25_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2017.04.020"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_26_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2009.04.035"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_27_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ypmed.2013.02.015"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_28_1","first-page":"48","article-title":"A comparison of fetal growth curves at altitude and sea level","volume":"5","author":"Izquierdo LA","year":"1995","journal-title":"J Matern Invest"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_29_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1002\/uog.17287"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_30_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pmed.1002220"}],"container-title":["Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/api.wiley.com\/onlinelibrary\/tdm\/v1\/articles\/10.1002%2Fjum.14725","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1002\/jum.14725","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2023,8,19]],"date-time":"2023-08-19T18:08:41Z","timestamp":1692468521000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/10.1002\/jum.14725"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2018,9,23]]},"references-count":29,"journal-issue":{"issue":"3","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2019,3]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1002\/jum.14725"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/jum.14725","archive":["Portico"],"relation":{},"ISSN":["0278-4297","1550-9613"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0278-4297","type":"print"},{"value":"1550-9613","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2018,9,23]]},"assertion":[{"value":"2018-02-12","order":0,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}},{"value":"2018-05-23","order":1,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}},{"value":"2018-09-23","order":2,"name":"published","label":"Published","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}}]}}