Literature DB >> 12100419

Prediction of fetal weight by ultrasound: the contribution of additional examiners.

I Gull1, G Fait, J Har-Toov, M J Kupferminc, J B Lessing, A J Jaffa, I Wolman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess the contribution of additional examiners to: the average discrepancy between estimated and actual fetal weights; the correlation between estimated and actual fetal weights; the reduction in major (> 10%) discrepancies between estimated and actual fetal weights.
DESIGN: Three experienced sonographers independently measured fetal biparietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference and femur length in 39 fetuses at term. The estimated fetal weights were calculated for each examiner. Fetal biometric measurements were analyzed to obtain the source of differences in estimations among the examiners. Discrepancy, correlation and number of major (> 10%) discrepancies between the estimated and actual fetal weights were calculated for each examiner, and the contribution of additional examiners was analyzed.
RESULTS: The differences in measurements of the biparietal diameter and femur length were lower than those of the head and abdominal circumferences. For each of the three examiners, the average discrepancy between the estimated and actual fetal weights was 6.1%, 5.9% and 6.3%. When the estimation was based on two examiners, the discrepancy decreased to 4.8-5.6%. The contribution of a third examiner was nil. Major (> 10%) discrepancies between estimated fetal weight and actual birth weight were found in seven, eight and nine estimations of the examiners. Estimation by two examiners decreased the number of major discrepancies, and estimation by all three examiners further decreased by approximately 50% the number of major discrepancies between the estimated and actual fetal weights.
CONCLUSION: Measurements by multiple examiners changes only slightly the average number of discrepancies between estimated and actual fetal weights. However, the reduction in major (> 10%) discrepancies is statistically and clinically significant.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12100419     DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.2002.00742.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0960-7692            Impact factor:   7.299


  8 in total

1.  Biparietal diameter measurements using the outer-to-outer versus outer-to-inner measurement: A question of pedantry?

Authors:  Lufee Wong; Eldho Paul; Hamsaveni Km Murday; Jing Fang; Ilona Lavender; Peter R Coombs; Mark Teoh
Journal:  Australas J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2018-04-16

2.  Sex-related growth differences are present but not enhanced in in vitro fertilization pregnancies.

Authors:  Kathleen E O'Neill; Methodius Tuuli; Anthony O Odibo; Randall R Odem; Amber Cooper
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2013-11-09       Impact factor: 7.329

3.  Fetal biometry for guiding the medical management of women with gestational diabetes mellitus for improving maternal and perinatal health.

Authors:  Ujvala Rao; Bradley de Vries; Glynis P Ross; Adrienne Gordon
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-09-03

4.  Associations of maternal retinal vasculature with subsequent fetal growth and birth size.

Authors:  Ling-Jun Li; Izzuddin Aris; Lin Lin Su; Mya Thway Tint; Carol Yim-Lui Cheung; M Kamran Ikram; Peter Gluckman; Keith M Godfrey; Kok Hian Tan; George Yeo; Fabian Yap; Kenneth Kwek; Seang-Mei Saw; Yap-Seng Chong; Tien-Yin Wong; Yung Seng Lee
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-04-24       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Estimating fetal weight for best clinical outcome.

Authors:  Susan Campbell Westerway
Journal:  Australas J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2015-12-31

6.  Scientific basis for standardization of fetal head measurements by ultrasound: a reproducibility study.

Authors:  R Napolitano; V Donadono; E O Ohuma; C L Knight; S Z Wanyonyi; B Kemp; T Norris; A T Papageorghiou
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 7.299

7.  Ultrasonography-based Fetal Weight Estimation: Finding an Appropriate Model for an Indian Population.

Authors:  Sujitkumar S Hiwale; Hemant Misra; Shrutin Ulman
Journal:  J Med Ultrasound       Date:  2016-12-15

8.  Birth weight prediction models for the different gestational age stages in a Chinese population.

Authors:  Chunhui Li; Yang Peng; Bin Zhang; Weiying Ji; Li Li; Jianhua Gong; Wei Xia; Yuanyuan Li; Shuna Jin; Ranran Song; Youjie Wang; Shunqing Xu
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-07-25       Impact factor: 4.379

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.