Fetal biometry assessment with Intergrowth 21st's and Salomon's equations in rural Burkina Faso

Biébo Bihoun, Serge Henri Zango, Maminata Traoré-Coulibaly, Innocent Valea, Raffaella Ravinetto, Jean-Pierre Van Geertruyden, Umberto D'Alessandro, Halidou Tinto, Annie Robert

Research output: Contribution to journalA1: Web of Science-articlepeer-review

32 Downloads (Pure)


BACKGROUND: Ultrasound scanning during the 2nd or the 3rd trimester of pregnancy for fetal size disturbances screening is heavily dependent of the choice of the reference chart. This study aimed to assess the agreement of Salomon and the Intergrowth 21st equations in evaluating fetal biometric measurements in a rural area of Burkina Faso, and to measure the effect of changing a reference chart.

METHODS: Data collected in Nazoanga, Burkina Faso, between October 2010 and October 2012, during a clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of several antimalarial treatments in pregnant women were analyzed. We included singleton pregnancies at 16-36 weeks gestation as determined by ultrasound measurements of fetal bi-parietal diameter (BPD), head circumference (HC), abdominal circumference (AC) and femur length (FL). Expected mean and standard deviation at a given gestational age was computed using equations from Salomon references and using Intergrowth 21st standard. Then, z-scores were calculated and used subsequently to compare Salomon references with Intergrowth 21st standards.

RESULTS: The analysis included 276 singleton pregnancies. Agreement was poor except for HC: mean difference - 0.01, limits of agreement - 0.60 and 0.59. When AC was used as a surrogate of fetal size, switching from the reference of Salomon to the standards of Intergrowth 21st increased ten times the proportion of fetuses above the 90th percentile: 2.9 and 31.2%, respectively. Mean differences were larger in the third trimester than in the second trimester. However, agreement remained good for HC in both trimesters. Difference in the proportion of AC measurements above the 90th percentile using Salomon and Intergrowth 21st equations was greater in the second trimester (2.6 and 36.3%, respectively) than in the third trimester (3.5 and 19.8%, respectively). The greatest difference between the two charts was observed in the number of FL measurements classified as large in the second trimester (6.8 and 54.2%, using Salomon and Intergrowth 21st equations, respectively).

CONCLUSION: The agreement between Intergrowth 21st and Salomon equations is poor apart from HC. This would imply different clinical decision regarding the management of the pregnancy.

Original languageEnglish
Article number492
JournalBMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Issue number1
Number of pages12
Publication statusPublished - 2020


Dive into the research topics of 'Fetal biometry assessment with Intergrowth 21st's and Salomon's equations in rural Burkina Faso'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this