Development of a fetal risk assessment score for the prediction of neonatal outcome in the growth-restricted fetus

References

• Evertson LR, Gauthier RJ, Schifrin BS, Paul RH. Antepartum fetal heart rate testing. I. Evolution of the nonstress test. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1979;133:29–33.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ACOG Practice Bulletin #9, October 1999. Antepartum Fetal Surveillance
   Google Scholar
• Manning FA, Baskett TF, Morrison I, Lange I. Fetal biophysical profile scoring: a prospective study in 1,184 high-risk patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981;140:289–294.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finberg HJ, Kurtz AB, Johnson RL, Wapner RJ. The biophysical profile. A literature review and reassessments of its usefulness in the evaluation of fetal well-being. J Ultrasound Med 1990;9:583–591.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Manning FA. Dynamic ultrasound-based fetal assessment: the fetal biophysical profile score. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1995;38:26–44.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ott WJ. Current perspectives in antenatal fetal surveillance. Ultrasound Rev Obstet Gynecol 2003;3:1–18.
   Google Scholar
• Yoon BH, Romero R, Roh CR, Kim SH, Ager JW, Syn HC, Cotton D, Kim SW. Relationship between the fetal biophysical profile score, umbilical artery Doppler velocimetry, and fetal blood acid-base status determined by cordocentesis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993;169:1586–1594.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wladimiroff JW, vd Wijngaard JA, Degani S, Noordam MJ, van Eyck J, Tonge HM. Cerebral and umbilical arterial blood flow velocity waveforms in normal and growth-retarded pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 1987;69:705–709.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mari G. Regional cerebral flow velocity waveforms in the human fetus. J Ultrasound Med 1994;13:343–346.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rizzo G, Capponi A, Pietropolli A, Bufalino LM, Arduini D, Romanini C. Fetal cardiac and extracardiac flows preceding intrauterine death. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1994;4:139–142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rizzo G, Capponi A, Talone PE, Arduini D, Romanini C. Doppler indices from inferior vena cava and ductus venosus in predicting pH and oxygen tension in umbilical blood at cordocentesis in growth-retarded fetuses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996;7:401–410.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ott WJ. Comparison of the non-stress test and middle cerebral to umbilical artery systolic/diastolic velocity waveform ratio for the prediction of neonatal compromise. J. Maternal Fetal Investigation 1996;6:73–76.
   Google Scholar
• Ott WJ, Mora G, Arias F, Sunderji S, Sheldon G. Comparison of the modified biophysical profile to a “new” biophysical profile incorporating the middle cerebral artery to umbilical artery velocity flow systolic/diastolic ratio. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;178:1346–1353.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Figueras F, Gardosi J. Intrauterine growth restriction: new concepts in antenatal surveillance, diagnosis, and management. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;204:288–300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mari G. Doppler ultrasonography in obstetrics: from the diagnosis of fetal anemia to the treatment of intrauterine growth-restricted fetuses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;200:613.e1–613.e9.
   Google Scholar
• Ott WJ. Comparison of the non-stress test with the evaluation of centralization of blood flow for the prediction of neonatal compromise. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999;14:38–41.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ott WJ. Value of fetal umbilical artery and carotid Doppler flow studies in the evaluation of suspected intrauterine growth retardation. J Matern Fetal Invest 1991;1:185–190.
   Google Scholar
• Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Carpenter RJ, Deter RL, Park SK. Sonographic estimation of fetal weight. The value of femur length in addition to head and abdomen measurements. Radiology 1984;150:535–540.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Martinez-Poyer J. In utero analysis of fetal growth: a sonographic weight standard. Radiology 1991;181:129–133.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manning FA. Fetal biophysical profile. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 1999;26:557–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metz CE. Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin Nucl Med 1978;8:283–298.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zweig MH, Campbell G. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem 1993;39:561–577.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goetzinger KR, Odibo AO. Statistical analysis and interpretation of prenatal diagnostic imaging studies, Part 1: evaluating the efficiency of screening and diagnostic tests. J Ultrasound Med 2011;30:1121–1127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cosmi E, Ambrosini G, D’Antona D, Saccardi C, Mari G. Doppler, cardiotocography, and biophysical profile changes in growth-restricted fetuses. Obstet Gynecol 2005;106:1240–1245.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turan OM, Turan S, Gungor S, Berg C, Moyano D, Gembruch U, Nicolaides KH, et al. Progression of Doppler abnormalities in intrauterine growth restriction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008;32:160–167.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baschat AA, Galan HL, Bhide A, Berg C, Kush ML, Oepkes D, Thilaganathan B, et al. Doppler and biophysical assessment in growth restricted fetuses: distribution of test results. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006;27:41–47.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mari G, Hanif F, Drennan K, Kruger M. Staging of intrauterine growth-restricted fetuses. J Ultrasound Med 2007;26:1469–77; quiz 1479.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mäkikallio K, Räsänen J, Mäkikallio T, Vuolteenaho O, Huhta JC. Human fetal cardiovascular profile score and neonatal outcome in intrauterine growth restriction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008;31:48–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baschat AA. Doppler application in the delivery timing of the preterm growth-restricted fetus: another step in the right direction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004;23:111–118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar