The fragile foundations of the extended fetuses-at-risk approach

Whether denominators for postnatal outcomes (ascertained after live birth) with a presumed prenatal origin should consist of fetuses or live births remains controversial. Proponents argue that the extended fetuses-at-risk (FAR) approach (a), provides a justification for medically indicated preterm delivery, (b), avoids paradoxical results, and (c), permits quantification of incidence of fetal-infant phenomena, such as "revealed" small for gestational age (SGA)-which, under FAR, rises with advancing gestation.

This conceptual paper examines the validity of the above arguments.

As obstetricians induce babies early because of fetal (or maternal) compromise and despite the dangers posed by immaturity, there is no need to modify a paradigm that portrays preterm birth as a powerful risk factor. The FAR approach generally avoids "paradoxical" intersections because FAR rates of postnatal outcomes depend on the birth rate. However, this property, which causes rates of most postnatal outcomes to rise at term, can also lead to risk reversals and other misleading findings. The FAR formulation does not yield the incidence of postnatal conditions but, rather, the incidence of live birth (and survival to diagnosis) of babies with prevalent conditions (and, sometimes, future ones).

The proposed arguments do not provide adequate support for extending the FAR approach to postnatal outcomes. As only live births can contribute to the numerator of rates, the usefulness and interpretability of FAR measures in this setting are limited.