Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Intrauterine growth restriction: comparison of American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists practice bulletin with other national guidelines

2009; Elsevier BV; Volume: 200; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/j.ajog.2008.11.025

1097-6868

Suneet P. Chauhan, Lata Gupta, Nancy W. Hendrix, Vincenzo Berghella,

Gestational Diabetes Research and Management

Objective The objective of the study was to compare national guidelines regarding small for gestational age (SGA). Study Design Along with American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) practice bulletin on abnormal growth, guidelines from England, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were reviewed. Results There are no guidelines on SGA from Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) guideline agrees with ACOG's definition of abnormal growth, but there are noticeable variances in the diagnosis and management of SGA. RCOG has more recommendations than ACOG (18 vs 4, respectively). The articles referenced varied, with only 13 similar articles being cited by the both committees. Conclusion The differences in the 2 guidelines suggest that there is variance in how 2 committees synthesize the literature and issue recommendations. The objective of the study was to compare national guidelines regarding small for gestational age (SGA). Along with American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) practice bulletin on abnormal growth, guidelines from England, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were reviewed. There are no guidelines on SGA from Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) guideline agrees with ACOG's definition of abnormal growth, but there are noticeable variances in the diagnosis and management of SGA. RCOG has more recommendations than ACOG (18 vs 4, respectively). The articles referenced varied, with only 13 similar articles being cited by the both committees. The differences in the 2 guidelines suggest that there is variance in how 2 committees synthesize the literature and issue recommendations.