Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40540533›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2025

The Fetal Region-specific Optimized Growth Standard (FROGS)-A fetal and birthweight centile calculator validated in a national population.

Natasha L Pritchard, Stephen Tong, Teresa MacDonald, Elizabeth McCarthy, Lisa Hui, Michael Bethune, Hannah G Gordon, Roxanne Hastie, Emerson Keenan, Michael Permezel and 2 more

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Natasha L PritchardDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Newborn Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7388-2193
Stephen TongDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Newborn Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2319-0586
Teresa MacDonaldDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Newborn Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9099-7745
Elizabeth McCarthyDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Newborn Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Lisa HuiDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Newborn Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Michael BethuneDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Newborn Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Hannah G GordonDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Newborn Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7510-0071
Roxanne HastieDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Newborn Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Emerson KeenanDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Newborn Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1966-2293
Michael PermezelDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Newborn Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Susan P WalkerDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Newborn Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Anthea C LindquistDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Newborn Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8662-5188

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is no universally agreed upon obstetric growth standard for use during pregnancy. We aimed to design a simple novel growth standard, which incorporates key beneficial features identified in prior research. METHODS AND

findingsWe developed the Fetal Region-specific Optimized Growth Standard (FROGS), then validated it following International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) guidelines. FROGS follows the shape of the fetal (ultrasound-based) Hadlock curve. It is region-specific; allowing adjustment for the mean birthweight and standard deviation of babies born at term in the local population where it will be applied. It provides an exact centile for each gestational day (rather than rounding off by weeks) and is optionally adjustable for fetal sex. Further, FROGS provides an 'estimate range' for the estimated fetal weight centile, assuming a 10% ultrasound measurement error. Following development, we validated FROGS in a retrospective cohort study by comparing its ability to identify small babies with an increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes to four charts in current use: (1) population birthweight chart (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, AIHW chart); (2) Hadlock's 1991 fetal chart; (3) Mikolajczyk's global fetal and birthweight centile chart; and (4) INTERGROWTH-21st fetal growth standards. To do this, we identified infants classified as small for gestational age (<10th centile) by each chart. We then identified non-overlapping <10th centile populations, i.e., infants classified as small by one chart, but not another. We compared rates of stillbirth and adverse perinatal outcomes between the non-overlapping populations. All charts except INTERGROWTH classified similar proportions of infants as <10th centile (10.4% FROGS, 9.3% AIHW, 11.1% Hadlock, 10.9% global, 4.4% INTERGROWTH). Of the three charts that classified similar proportions as <10th centile, infants classified by FROGS were at the highest risk of adverse perinatal outcomes. The infants classified as <10th centile by only FROGS had significantly increased relative risk (RR) of stillbirth, compared to the infants classified as <10th centile by only AIHW (RR 13.1, 95% CI 6.5-26.5), only Hadlock (RR 2.1, 95% CI 1.28-3.56) or only the global chart (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.00-2.37). The FROGS chart outperformed these three charts in identifying infants at risk of other adverse perinatal outcomes associated with being small for gestational age, such as neonatal intensive care admission, Apgar scores <7 at 5 min, and operative (instrumental) vaginal birth for suspected fetal compromise. The cohort of infants classified as small for gestational age by INTERGROWTH was, in size and risk, closer to the cohort classified as <3rd centile by FROGS (3.4% of infants <3rd). This study is limited in that it retrospectively assesses birthweight, which may have different implications to a prospective evaluation of estimated fetal weight.

conclusionsCompared to currently used charts, the Fetal Region-specific Optimized Growth Standard outperforms existing charts that classify a similar proportion of infants as small for gestational age in identifying small infants at increased risk of stillbirth and other serious perinatal outcomes. The FROGS centile algorithm is simple and transparent. It has the potential to be adapted to other local populations, or applied to clinical and research settings globally.

Indexed as

Birth WeightFetal DevelopmentGrowth ChartsUltrasonography, PrenatalAustraliaFemaleFetal WeightGestational AgeHumansInfant, NewbornMalePregnancyReference ValuesRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID40540533
PMCPMC12212869

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.