Screening for large-for-gestational-age neonates at term: evidence of a labeling effect and increased intervention without neonatal benefit
*Retrospective cohort with diagnostic accuracy analysis; Level 2 (OCEBM).
Citation
Lopian M, Ulusoy CO, Mohamed D, Segal E, Khalil A. Screening for large-for-gestational-age neonates at term. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2026.Background
Large babies have higher delivery risks, but ultrasound weight estimates near term are imperfect. This study examined whether routine screening helps outcomes or mainly changes clinician behavior.Patients
21,743 singleton pregnancies with routine ultrasound at 35 to 37 weeks at one London tertiary center. Excluded: major fetal anomalies, genetic abnormalities, or missing outcome data.Intervention
Screen-positive ultrasound: estimated fetal weight at or above the 90th percentile.Control
Screen-negative ultrasound; analyses also compared false-positive with true-negative and false-negative with true-positive groups.Outcome
Detection of large-for-gestational-age or birthweight over 4000 g; delivery mode; maternal and neonatal composite adverse outcomes.Follow-up Period
From ultrasound to delivery, about 20 to 23 days.Results
| Finding | Result |
|---|---|
| Detection of large-for-gestational-age birth | Sensitivity 34.9% (95% CI 33.2 to 36.6); specificity 97.4% (95% CI 97.2 to 97.6) |
| Attempted labor after positive screen | RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.90) |
| Intrapartum cesarean after positive screen | RR 1.47 (95% CI 1.30 to 1.67); approximate NNH 22 |
| Maternal composite adverse outcome after positive screen | RR 1.43 (95% CI 1.32 to 1.55); approximate NNH 12 |
| False-positive screen: maternal composite outcome | RR 1.28 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.48); no neonatal benefit |
RR: relative risk. NNH: number needed to harm, calculated from unadjusted event rates.
Composite maternal outcomes included intrapartum cesarean delivery, which likely contributed substantially to the composite increase. Results were adjusted observational analyses.
Discussion
Sign in to join the discussion.
In this retrospective cohort, routine 35–37-week ultrasound labeling of suspected LGA had low sensitivity (34.9%) and false positives had more intrapartum cesareans (aRR 1.25) without increased neonatal morbidity; given the nonrandomized design, should this change universal screening or counseling? Biostats / Study Design Multiple-Choice Question: In this study, ultrasound screening for LGA had a sensitivity of 34.9% and specificity of 97.4%. What does the sensitivity of 34.9% mean?