Pollack, RN, Divon, MY. Intrauterine growth retardation: Definition, classification, and etiology. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1992;35:99–107.Google Scholar

Resnik, R. Intrauterine growth restriction. Obstet Gynecol 2002;99(3):490–496.Google Scholar

Crossey, PA, Pillai, CC, Miell, JP. Altered placental development and intrauterine growth restriction in IGF binding protein-1 transgenic mice. J Clin Invest 2002;110(3):411–418.Google Scholar

Fetal Growth Restriction. Practice Bulletin No. 134. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2013;121:1122–1133.Google Scholar

Chauhan, SP, Cole, J, Sanderson, M, Magann, EF, Scardo, JA. Suspicion of intrauterine growth restriction: Use of abdominal circumference alone or estimated fetal weight below 10%. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2006;19(9):557–562.Google Scholar

Gardosi, J. Clinical strategies for improving the detection of fetal growth restriction. Clin Perinatol 2011;38(1):21–31.Google Scholar

Figueras, F, Gardosi, J. Intrauterine growth restriction: New concepts in antenatal surveillance, diagnosis and management. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;204:288–300.Google Scholar

Lindqvist, PG, Molin, J. Does antenatal identification of small-for-gestational age fetuses significantly improve their outcome? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005;25:258–264.Google Scholar

ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 22: Fetal Macrosomia. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Washington DC; 2000.Google Scholar

Zhang, X, Decker, A, Platt, RW, et al. How big is too big? The perinatal consequences of fetal macrosomia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;198:517.e1–517.e6.Google Scholar

Conway, DL, Langer, O. Elective delivery of infants with macrosomia in diabetic women: Reduced shoulder dystocia versus increased cesarean deliveries. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;178:922–925.Google Scholar

Cheng, EF, et al. Labor and delivery experience of mothers with suspected large babies. Matern Child Health J 2015; 19(12):2578–86.Google Scholar

Jacobsson, B, Ahlin, K, Francis, A, Hagberg, G, Hagberg, H, Gardosi, J. Cerebral palsy and restricted growth status at birth: Population-based case–control study. Br J Obstet Gynecol 2008;115:1250–1255.Google Scholar

Jones, RAK, Roberton, NRC. Small for dates babies: Are they really a problem? Arch Dis Child 1986;61:877–880.Google Scholar

Rosenberg, A. The IUGR Newborn. Semin Perinatol 2008;32(3):219–224.Google Scholar

Getahun, D et al. Risk factors for antepartum and intrapartum stillbirth: A population-based study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;196:499–507.Google Scholar

Martin, JA, Hamilton, BE, Ventura, SJ, et al. Births: Final data for 2011. National vital statistics reports: From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System. 2013;62(1):1–69.Google Scholar

Weissmann-Brenner, A, et al. Maternal and neonatal outcomes of macrosomic pregnancies. Med Sci Monit 2012;9:77–81.Google Scholar

Mohammadbeigi, A, et al. Fetal macrosomia: Risk factors, maternal and perinatal outcome. Ann Med Health Sci Res 2013; 3(4):546–550.Google Scholar

Sparks, TN, Cheng, YW, Mclaughlin, B, Esakoff, TF, Caughey, AB. Fundal height: A useful screening tool for fetal growth? J Mat-Fetal Neonat Med 2011;24(5):708–712.Google Scholar

Executive summary: Hypertension in pregnancy: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122:122–131.Google Scholar

Bukowski, R, Uchida, T, Smith, GCS, Malone, FD, Ball, FH, Nyberg, DA, et al. Individualized norms of optimal fetal growth:fetal growth potential. Obstet Gynecol 2008;111(5):1065–1076.Google Scholar

Clausson, B, Gardosi, J, Francis, A, Cnattingius, S. Perinatal outcome in SGA births defined by customised versus population-based birthweight standards. Br J Obstet Gynecol 2001;108:830–834.Google Scholar

Ego, A, et al. Customized versus population-based birth weight standards for identifying growth restricted infants: A French multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;194:1042–1049.Google Scholar

Lugo, EJ, Tominey, TM. The adverse effects of utilizing altitude-inappropriate fetal growth curves. J Perinatol 1989;9(2):147–149.Google Scholar

David, C, Gabrielli, S, Pilu, G, Boricelli, L. The head-to-abdomen circumference ratio: A reappraisal. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995;5(4):256–259.Google Scholar

Smith-Bindman, R, Chu, PW, Ecker, J, Feldstein, VA, Filly, RA, Bacchetti, P. Adverse birth outcomes in relation to prenatal sonographic measurements of fetal size. J Ultrasound Med 2003;22:347–356.Google Scholar

Svensson, AC, Pawitan, Y, Cnattingius, S, Reilly, M, Lichtenstein, P. Familial aggregation of small-for gestational age births: The importance of fetal genetic effects. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;194:475–479.Google Scholar

McCowan, L, Horgan, RP. Risk factors for small for gestational age infants. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2009;23:779–793.Google Scholar

Berends, AL, de Groot, CJM, Sijbrands, EJ, Sie, MPS, Benneheij, SH, Pal, R, Heydanus, R, Oostra, BA, van Duijn, CM, Steegers, EAP. Shared constitutional risks for maternal vascular-related pregnancy complications and future cardiovascular disease. Hypertension 2008;S1:1034–1041.Google Scholar

Moore, LG, Charles, SM, Julian, CG. Humans at high altitude: Hypoxia and fetal growth. Respir Physiol Neurobiol 2011;178(1):181–190.Google Scholar

Shu, XO et al. Maternal smoking, alcohol drinking, caffeine consumption, and fetal growth: Results from a prospective study. Epidemiology 1995;6:115–120.Google Scholar

Ofir, K, Kalter, A, Moran, O, Sivan, E, Schiff, E, Simchen, MJ. Subsequent pregnancy after stillbirth: Obstetrical and medical risks. J Perinatal Med 2013;41(5): 543–548.Google Scholar

Zeitlin, JA, Ancel, PY, Saurel-Cubizolles, MJ, Papiernik, E. Are risk factors the same for small for gestational age versus other preterm births? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185(1):208–215.Google Scholar

Maulik, D. Fetal growth restriction: The etiology. Clinical Obstet Gynecol 2006;49(2):228–235.Google Scholar

Pardi, G, Marconi, AM, Cetin, I. Placental–fetal interrelationship in IUGR fetuses – A review. Placenta. 2002;23:5136–5141.Google Scholar

Hadlock, FP, Deter, RL, Harrist, RB. Sonographic detection of abnormal fetal growth patterns. Clinical Obstet Gynecol 1984;27:342–351.Google Scholar

Alfirevic, Z, Stampalija, T, Gyte, GML. Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in normal pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010, Issue 8. Art. No.: CD001450. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001450.pub3.Google Scholar

Baschat, AA. Opinion and review: Doppler application in the delivery timing of the preterm growth-restricted fetus: Another step in the right direction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004;23:111–118.Google Scholar

Hartung, J, Kalache, KD, Heyna, C, Heling, KS, et al. Outcome of 60 neonates who had ARED flow prenatally compared with a matched control group of appropriate-for-gestational age preterm neonates. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005;25:566–572.Google Scholar

Kaponis, A, Harada, T, Makrydimas, G, Kiyama, T, Arata, K, Adonakis, G, et al. The importance of venous Doppler velocimetry for evaluation of intrauterine growth restriction. J Ultrasound Med 2011;30(4):529–545.Google Scholar

Kingdom, JCP, Burrell, SJ, Kaufmann, P. Pathology and clinical implications of abnormal umbilical artery Doppler waveform. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997;9:271–286.Google Scholar

Berkley, E, Chauhan, S, Abuhamad, A. Doppler assessment of the fetus with intrauterine growth restriction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;206(4):300–308.Google Scholar

Boers, KE, Vijgen, SMC, Bijlenga, D, van der Post, JAM, et al. Induction versus expectant monitoring for intrauterine growth restriction at term: Randomised equivalence trial (DIGITAT). BMJ 2010;341:c7087Google Scholar

Galan, HL. Timing delivery of the growth restricted fetus. Semin Perinatol 2011;35:262–269.Google Scholar

Spong, CY, Mercer, BM, D’Alton, M, Kilpatrick, S, Blackwell, S, Saade, G. Timing of indicated late-preterm and early-term birth. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118:323–333.Google Scholar

The GRIT Study Group. A randomised trial of timed delivery for the compromised preterm fetus: Short term outcomes and Bayesian interpretation. Br J Obstet Gynecol 2003;110:27–32.Google Scholar

Werner, EF et al. Mode of delivery and neonatal outcomes in preterm, small-for-gestational-age newborns. Obstet Gynecol 2012;120(3):560–564.Google Scholar

Okun, N, Verma, A, Mitchell, BF, Flowerdew, G. Relative importance of maternal constitutional factors and glucose intolerance of pregnancy in the development of newborn macrosomia. J Matern Fetal Med 1997;6:285–290.Google Scholar

Nocon, JJ, McKenzie, DK, Thomas, CJ, Hansell, RS. Shoulder dystocia: An analysis of risks and obstetric maneuvers. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993;168:1732–1739.Google Scholar

Lipscomb, KR, Gregory, K, Shaw, K. The outcome of macrosomic infants weighing at least 4500 grams: Los Angeles and University of Southern California experience. Obstet Gynecol 1995;85:558–564.Google Scholar

Abdella, RMA, Ahmed, SAM, Moustata, MI. Sonographic evaluation of fetal abdominal circumference and cerebroplacental Doppler indices for the prediction of fetal macrosomia in full term pregnant women. Middle East Fertility Soc J 2014;19(1):69–74.Google Scholar