E Peregrine1, P O'Brien, E Jauniaux. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University College London Hospitals, London, UK. e.peregrine@ucl.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the accuracy of clinical and sonographic fetal weight estimation in predicting birth weight prior to induction of labor. METHODS: In a prospective study of 262 women immediately prior to induction of labor, the fetal weight was estimated clinically by both the doctor (DR EFW) and the woman herself (WM EFW). A transabdominal scan was then performed to estimate the fetal weight sonographically using two different formulae-Shepard (SHEP EFW) and Hadlock (HAD EFW). The four estimated fetal weights were compared with the actual birth weight. RESULTS: The mean percentage error was - 1.9 +/- 9.3% for DR EFW, - 3.4 +/- 12.6% for WM EFW, - 2.3 +/- 11.6% for SHEP EFW and - 7.6 +/- 10.6% for HAD EFW. All four EFWs were significantly different from birth weight (t = - 4.7, - 5.5, - 3.5 and - 11.4, respectively, all P < 0.01). The corresponding proportion of the EFWs which were within 10% of birth weight were 71%, 59%, 62% and 42%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of detecting a fetus weighing < 3000 g were 56% and 98% for DR EFW, 90% and 89% for WM EFW, 93% and 83% for SHEP EFW and 100% and 76% for HAD EFW. The corresponding values for detecting a fetus weighing > 4000 g were 16% and 99%, 29% and 96%, 48% and 92% and 40% and 94%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although, in general, clinical estimates of birth weight perform favorably compared with ultrasonographic estimates, ultrasound immediately prior to labor is more accurate at predicting the low- or high-birth-weight fetus.
OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the accuracy of clinical and sonographic fetal weight estimation in predicting birth weight prior to induction of labor. METHODS: In a prospective study of 262 women immediately prior to induction of labor, the fetal weight was estimated clinically by both the doctor (DR EFW) and the woman herself (WM EFW). A transabdominal scan was then performed to estimate the fetal weight sonographically using two different formulae-Shepard (SHEP EFW) and Hadlock (HAD EFW). The four estimated fetal weights were compared with the actual birth weight. RESULTS: The mean percentage error was - 1.9 +/- 9.3% for DR EFW, - 3.4 +/- 12.6% for WM EFW, - 2.3 +/- 11.6% for SHEP EFW and - 7.6 +/- 10.6% for HAD EFW. All four EFWs were significantly different from birth weight (t = - 4.7, - 5.5, - 3.5 and - 11.4, respectively, all P < 0.01). The corresponding proportion of the EFWs which were within 10% of birth weight were 71%, 59%, 62% and 42%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of detecting a fetus weighing < 3000 g were 56% and 98% for DR EFW, 90% and 89% for WM EFW, 93% and 83% for SHEP EFW and 100% and 76% for HAD EFW. The corresponding values for detecting a fetus weighing > 4000 g were 16% and 99%, 29% and 96%, 48% and 92% and 40% and 94%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although, in general, clinical estimates of birth weight perform favorably compared with ultrasonographic estimates, ultrasound immediately prior to labor is more accurate at predicting the low- or high-birth-weight fetus.
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
Authors: Katherine R Goetzinger; Anthony O Odibo; Anthony L Shanks; Kimberly A Roehl; Alison G Cahill Journal: J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med Date: 2013-06-20
Authors: Charles Njoku; Cajethan Emechebe; Patience Odusolu; Sylvestre Abeshi; Chinedu Chukwu; John Ekabua Journal: Int Sch Res Notices Date: 2014-11-10