Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 298, Issue 1, pp 67–74 | Cite as

Fetal overgrowth in pregnancies complicated by diabetes: development of a clinical prediction index

  • Tracy M. Tomlinson
  • Dorothea J. Mostello
  • Kee-Hak Lim
  • Jennifer S. Pritchard
  • Gil Gross
Maternal-Fetal Medicine



To develop an index to predict fetal overgrowth in pregnancies complicated by diabetes.


Data were derived from a cohort of 275 women with singleton gestations in a collaborative diabetes in pregnancy program. Regression analysis incorporated clinical factors available in the first 20–30 weeks of pregnancy that were assigned beta-coefficient-based weights, the sum of which yielded a fetal overgrowth index (composite score).


Fifty-one (18.5%) pregnancies were complicated by fetal overgrowth. The derived index included five clinical factors: age ≤ 30, history of macrosomia, excessive gestational weight gain, enlarged fetal abdominal circumference, and fasting hyperglycemia. Area under the curve (AUC) for the index is 0.88 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82–0.92]. Cut-points were selected to identify “high-risk” and “low-risk” ranges (≥ 8 and ≤ 3) that have positive and negative predictive values of 84% (95% CI 70–98%) and 95% (95% CI 92–98%), respectively. The majority of women in our cohort (n = 182, 66%) had a “low-risk” index while 9% (n = 25) had a “high-risk” index. Sub-analyses of nulliparous women and women with gestational and pre-gestational diabetes revealed that the overgrowth index was equally or more predictive when applied separately to each of these groups.


This fetal overgrowth index that incorporates five clinical factors provides a means of predicting fetal overgrowth and thereby serves as a tool for targeting the allocation of healthcare resources and treatment individualization.


Birthweight Diabetes Large-for-gestational age Macrosomia Prediction 



We would like to thank Lea Bouchard, Gayle Davidson, and Wendy Barrett, South Shore Hospital, for assistance with data collection.

Author contributions

TT: protocol/project development, data collection and management, data analysis, and manuscript writing/editing. DM: manuscript writing/editing. KHL: manuscript writing/editing. JP: data collection or management. GG: manuscript writing/editing.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

For this type of study formal consent is not required. Ethics approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board at South Shore Hospital (Weymouth, MA) on 4/10/2012 (SSH-ID#12-006). A waiver of consent was approved because the study involved the development of a prediction index using anonymised medical chart data that had been routinely collected. The only risk to patients was potential breach of confidentiality which was minimized by use of a password-protected database and a code to protect patient confidentiality. The key to the code was kept separate from the data and destroyed at the completion of the data analysis.


  1. 1.
    Boney CM, Verma A, Tucker R, Vohr BR (2005) Metabolic syndrome in childhood: association with birth weight, maternal obesity, and gestational diabetes mellitus. Pediatrics 115(3):e290–e296CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obsterics (2013) Practice bulletin no. 137: gestational diabetes mellitus. Obstet Gynecol 122:406–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barker DJP, Gluckman PD, Godfrey KM, Harding J, Owens JA, Robinson JS (1993) Fetal nutrition and cardiovascular disease in adult life. Lancet 341:938–941CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gardosi J, Chang A, Kalyan B, Sahota D, Symonds EM (1992) Customised antenatal growth charts. Lancet 339:283–287CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Larkin JC, Speer PD, Simhan HN (2011) A customized standard of large size for gestational age to predict intrapartum morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 204:499.e1–499.e10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gardosi J, Francis A (2009) A customised standard to assess fetal growth in a US population. Am J Obstet Gynecol 201:25.e1–25.e7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee W, Riggs T, Koo W, Deter RL, Yeo L, Romero R (2012) The relationship of newborn adiposity to fetal growth outcome based on birth weight or the modified neonatal growth assessment score. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 25(10):1933–1940CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    González-González NL, González-Dávila E, Cabrera F, Vega B, Padron E, Bartha JL et al (2015) Application of customized birth weight curves in the assessment of perinatal outcomes in infants of diabetic mothers. Fetal Diagn Ther 37(2):117–122CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rasmussen KM, Catalano PM, Yaktine AL (2009) New guidelines for weight gain during pregnancy: what obstetrician/gynecologists should know. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 21(6):521–526CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hadlock FP, Deter RL, Harrist RB, Park SK (1984) Estimating fetal age: computer-assisted analysis of multiple fetal growth parameters. Radiology 152(2):497–501CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alexander GR, Himes JH, Kaufman RB, Mor J, Kogan M (1996) A United States national reference for fetal growth. Obstet Gynecol 87(2):163–168CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dalfrà MG, Sartore G, Di Cianni G, Mello G, Lencioni C, Ottanelli S et al (2011) Glucose variability in diabetic pregnancy. Diabetes Technol Ther 13(8):853–859CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cheng YW, Chung JH, Kurbisch-Block I, Inturrisi M, Shafer S, Caughey AB (2008) Gestational weight gain and gestational diabetes mellitus: perinatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 112(5):1015–1022CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yang J, Cummings EA, O’connell C, Jangaard K (2006) Fetal and neonatal outcomes of diabetic pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 108(3):644–650CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kase BA, Cormier CM, Costantine MM, Hutchinson M, Ramin SM, Saade GR et al (2012) Population standards of birth weight underestimate fetal growth abnormalities in diabetic pregnancies. Am J Perinat 29(2):147–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Habayeb O, Daemen A, Timmerman D, De Moor B, Hackett GA, Bourne T et al (2010) The relationship between first trimester fetal growth, pregnancy-associated plasma protein A levels and birthweight. Prenat Diagn 30(9):873–878CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Spencer K, Cowans NJ (2013) The association between gestational diabetes mellitus and first trimester aneuploidy screening markers. Ann Clin Biochem 50:603–610CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wald NJ, Watt HC, George L (1996) Maternal serum inhibin-A in pregnancies with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: implications for screening for Down’s syndrome. Prenat Diagn 16(10):923–926CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wallace EM, Crossley JA, Ritoe SC, Groome NP, Aitken DA (1997) Maternal serum inhibin-A in pregnancies complicated by insulin dependent diabetes mellitus. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 104(8):946–948CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Flegal KM, Carroll MD, Kit BK, Ogden C (2012) Prevalence of obesity and trends in the distribution of body mass index among US adults, 1999–2010. JAMA 307:491–497CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women’s HealthSaint Louis University School of MedicineSaint LouisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyBoston Maternal-Fetal Medicine, South Shore HospitalWeymouthUSA
  3. 3.New England Quality Care AllianceBraintreeUSA

Personalised recommendations