L J Salomon1, J P Bernard, Y Ville. 1. Service de Gynécologie-Obstétrique, Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Poissy-St Germain, Poissy, France. laurentsalomon@wanadoo.fr
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To formulate reference charts and equations for estimated fetal weight (EFW) from a large sample of fetuses and to compare these charts and equations with those obtained for birth weight during the same study period and in the same single health authority. METHODS: Biometric data were obtained at 20-36 weeks' gestation from routine screening examinations spanning 4 years. Exclusion criteria were a known abnormal karyotype or congenital malformation and multiple pregnancy. No data were excluded on the basis of abnormal biometry. EFW was calculated based on Hadlock's formula. We used a polynomial regression approach (mean and SD model) to compute a new reference chart for EFW. This chart was compared with that of birth weight at 25-36 weeks' gestation during the same study period and in the same health authority. RESULTS: 18,959 fetuses were included in the study. New charts and equations for Z-score calculations at 20-36 weeks' gestation are reported. Comparison with the birth-weight chart showed that the EFW was noticeably larger at 25-36 weeks' gestation. At 28-32 weeks' gestation, the 50th centile for birth weight compared approximately with the 10th centile for EFW. CONCLUSION: We present new reference charts and equations for EFW. EFW is computed throughout gestation based on measurements in healthy fetuses. However, before full term, birth-weight charts reflect a significant proportion of growth-restricted fetuses that deliver prematurely. We provide additional evidence that comparing EFW with birth-weight charts is misleading. Copyright (c) 2007 ISUOG.
OBJECTIVES: To formulate reference charts and equations for estimated fetal weight (EFW) from a large sample of fetuses and to compare these charts and equations with those obtained for birth weight during the same study period and in the same single health authority. METHODS: Biometric data were obtained at 20-36 weeks' gestation from routine screening examinations spanning 4 years. Exclusion criteria were a known abnormal karyotype or congenital malformation and multiple pregnancy. No data were excluded on the basis of abnormal biometry. EFW was calculated based on Hadlock's formula. We used a polynomial regression approach (mean and SD model) to compute a new reference chart for EFW. This chart was compared with that of birth weight at 25-36 weeks' gestation during the same study period and in the same health authority. RESULTS: 18,959 fetuses were included in the study. New charts and equations for Z-score calculations at 20-36 weeks' gestation are reported. Comparison with the birth-weight chart showed that the EFW was noticeably larger at 25-36 weeks' gestation. At 28-32 weeks' gestation, the 50th centile for birth weight compared approximately with the 10th centile for EFW. CONCLUSION: We present new reference charts and equations for EFW. EFW is computed throughout gestation based on measurements in healthy fetuses. However, before full term, birth-weight charts reflect a significant proportion of growth-restricted fetuses that deliver prematurely. We provide additional evidence that comparing EFW with birth-weight charts is misleading. Copyright (c) 2007 ISUOG.
Authors: Iris G Streimish; Richard A Ehrenkranz; Elizabeth N Allred; T Michael O'Shea; Karl C K Kuban; Nigel Paneth; Alan Leviton Journal: Early Hum Dev Date: 2012-06-23 Impact factor: 2.079
Authors: Georgios Schoretsanitis; Sara V Carlini; Majnu John; John M Kane; Kristina M Deligiannidis Journal: J Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2021 Sep-Oct 01 Impact factor: 3.153
Authors: W Lee; M Balasubramaniam; R L Deter; S S Hassan; F Gotsch; J P Kusanovic; L F Gonçalves; R Romero Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: Arun S Kinare; Manoj C Chinchwadkar; Asit S Natekar; Kurus J Coyaji; Andrew K Wills; Charudatta V Joglekar; Chittaranjan S Yajnik; Caroline H D Fall Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 2.153