Scinovex
article Open Access

Comparison of Hadlock formula and intergrowth-21st standards for fetal growth restriction detection: A comparative study

Abstract

Introduction: Fetal growth restriction (FGR) is a critical obstetric condition associated with adverse perinatal outcomes, necessitating precise detection. This study compares the diagnostic performance of the Hadlock formula and Intergrowth- 21st (IG-21) standards for FGR identification. Methods: A retrospective comparative study was conducted at Menzel Temime Regional Hospital, Tunisia, from January 2024 to March 2025, including 350 singleton pregnancies with ultrasound data at 28-36 weeks. Estimated fetal weight (EFW) was calculated using Had- lock and IG-21 standards, with FGR defined as EFW <10th percentile. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and ultrasound parameter performance were analyzed. Results: Hadlock identified 52 (14.9%) FGR cases, while IG-21 identified 44 (12.6%). Hadlock showed higher sensitivity (87.0% vs. 78.3%) but lower specificity (89.8% vs. 93.5%). Positive predictive value (PPV) was 65.0% for Hadlock and 70.5% for IG-21; negative predictive value (NPV) was 96.9% and 95.3%, respectively. Abdominal circumference (AC) <10th percentile was the most sensitive parameter for both standards (Hadlock: 82.6%, IG-21: 76.1%). Conclusion: Had- lock is more sensitive but less specific than IG-21 for FGR detection. IG-21 reduces false positives, optimizing resource allocation. Ultrasound parameters, particularly AC, enhance diagnostic accuracy. Clinicians should tailor standard selection to population characteristics.

Birth, Development, and HealthPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFetal growthGrowth restrictionBiologyFetusGeneticsPregnancy
Citations
0
FWCI
0.00
field-weighted impact
References
0
Percentile
15%
vs. same field & year
Citation Network

How this paper connects to the literature. Drag to explore, click any node to open that paper.

Comparison of Hadlock formula and intergrowth-21st standards for fetal growth restriction detection: A comparative study · Scinovex