VP35.11: Fetal growth prescriptive charts evaluation: a systematic review

Prescriptive charts have emerged in prenatal care; nevertheless, their use remains very controversial and descriptive are still preferred many countries. This systematic review aimed to assessed the methodological quality of studies that compared prescriptive fetal growth other charts. We undertook a MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library Grey literature sources search for from 2014 June 1, 2021. The was carried out using combinations terms “fetal growth” “intergrowth” “Eunice” “WHO”. All were i) study design (prospective/retrospective); ii) type population (general or specific); iii) blinding ultrasound measurements; iv) sample size calculation; v) dating methods primary outcomes. electronic yielded 25125 citations. finally included 30 (21 retrospective 9 prospective). In none measurements taken research reasons only. Only two had as outcome comparison effectiveness between curves. highest potential bias identified inclusion exclusion criteria population. No quality-control measures nor blinding. is performed blinded measure. examiners either measured values expected normal they used. method pregnancy heterogeneous. These found wide disparity rate SGA screening by curves 3% 15.9%. There profound clinical heterogeneity assessing vast majority them purposes, therefore not fitted requirements such comparison. Thus, results may be applicable.