Literature DB >> 1727587

Sonographic diagnosis of the large for gestational age fetus at term: does it make a difference?

A B Levine1, C J Lockwood, B Brown, R Lapinski, R L Berkowitz.   

Abstract

We evaluated 406 women with late third-trimester ultrasound examinations to determine whether the sonographic diagnosis of a large for gestational age (LGA) fetus, defined as an estimated fetal weight at or above the 90th percentile, altered the management of labor and delivery. The sonographic prediction of LGA fetuses had a sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of 50, 90, and 52%, respectively. Women without the sonographic diagnosis of an LGA fetus (N = 338) differed from those with the diagnosis (N = 68) in the frequency of diagnosed labor abnormalities (19 versus 30%, P = .03), use of epidural anesthesia (57 versus 74%, P = .01), and the incidence of cesarean deliveries (32 versus 53%, P = .004). To determine whether it was the sonographic prediction of an LGA fetus or the actual fetal weight that altered clinical management and perinatal outcomes, we stratified the study population into four groups and compared the true negatives with the false positives and the false negatives with the true positives. The incorrect sonographic diagnosis of an LGA fetus had a statistically significant effect on both the diagnosis of labor abnormalities (P = .04) and the incidence of elective cesareans (P = .04) in pregnancies with appropriate for gestational age birth weights.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1727587

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  6 in total

1.  Universal late pregnancy ultrasound screening to predict adverse outcomes in nulliparous women: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Gordon Cs Smith; Alexandros A Moraitis; David Wastlund; Jim G Thornton; Aris Papageorghiou; Julia Sanders; Alexander Ep Heazell; Stephen C Robson; Ulla Sovio; Peter Brocklehurst; Edward Cf Wilson
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2021-02       Impact factor: 4.014

Review 2.  Intrapartum interventions for preventing shoulder dystocia.

Authors:  C Athukorala; P Middleton; C A Crowther
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2006-10-18

3.  Obstetric consequences of a false-positive diagnosis of large-for-gestational-age fetus.

Authors:  Marta Papaccio; Anna Fichera; Alessia Nava; Sonia Zatti; Vera Gerosa; Federico Ferrari; Enrico Sartori; Federico Prefumo; Nicola Fratelli
Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet       Date:  2021-12-09       Impact factor: 4.447

4.  Disadvantages of a weight estimation formula for macrosomic fetuses: the Hart formula from a clinical perspective.

Authors:  Christoph Weiss; Peter Oppelt; Richard Bernhard Mayer
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2018-10-04       Impact factor: 2.344

5.  Does the Porter formula hold its promise? A weight estimation formula for macrosomic fetuses put to the test.

Authors:  Christoph Weiss; Sabine Enengl; Simon Hermann Enzelsberger; Richard Bernhard Mayer; Peter Oppelt
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2019-12-27       Impact factor: 2.344

6.  Universal third-trimester ultrasonic screening using fetal macrosomia in the prediction of adverse perinatal outcome: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.

Authors:  Alexandros A Moraitis; Norman Shreeve; Ulla Sovio; Peter Brocklehurst; Alexander E P Heazell; Jim G Thornton; Stephen C Robson; Aris Papageorghiou; Gordon C Smith
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2020-10-13       Impact factor: 11.069

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.