Literature DB >> 19582801

Comparison of fundal height measurement and sonographically measured fetal abdominal circumference in the prediction of high and low birth weight at term.

G Kayem1, G Grangé, G Bréart, F Goffinet.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic value of fundal height and sonographically measured fetal abdominal circumference in the prediction of high and low birth weight in routine practice between 37 and 41 weeks' gestation.
METHODS: Data were obtained from a multicenter study of 19 415 women in France and Belgium. In this study we included 7138 low-risk women from that population who underwent fundal height measurements no more than 8 days before delivery (Population A). We also included another 1689 women with both fundal height measurements and fetal ultrasound measurements obtained no more than 8 days before delivery (Population B). Population A was used to calculate the parameters of equations for estimating fetal weight according to fundal height alone (EFW(FH)) or fundal height in combination with other clinical indicators (EFW(FH+)). The ultrasound fetal weight estimation was based on fetal abdominal circumference (EFW(AC)) using Campbell and Wilkins' equation. The correlation between the estimated fetal weight calculated using each of the formulae and the birth weight was then evaluated in Population B, and the diagnostic value of each of the methods for predicting birth weight <or=2500 g or >or=4000 g was also compared.
RESULTS: EFW(AC) was better correlated with birth weight than was either EFW(FH) or EFW(FH+). With specificity set at 95%, the sensitivity of EFW(AC) in screening for neonates weighing <or=2500 g was significantly higher than that of EFW(FH) (50.7% vs. 41.2%, P < 0.05) or EFW(FH+) (50.7% vs. 40.4%, P < 0.05). Similarly, its sensitivity for predicting a birth weight of >or=4000 g was significantly higher than that of EFW(FH) (54.0% vs. 37.1%, P < 0.05) or EFW(FH+) (54.0% vs. 45.1%, P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Sonographic measurement of fetal abdominal circumference predicts high and low birth weight better than does clinical examination based on fundal height in routine practice between 37 and 41 weeks' gestation. Copyright (c) 2009 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19582801     DOI: 10.1002/uog.6378

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


  14 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

2.  Ultrasound versus Clinical Examination to Estimate Fetal Weight at Term.

Authors:  Jan-Simon Lanowski; Gabriele Lanowski; Cordula Schippert; Kristina Drinkut; Peter Hillemanns; Ismini Staboulidou
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 2.915

3.  Diagnostic accuracy of fundal height and handheld ultrasound-measured abdominal circumference to screen for fetal growth abnormalities.

Authors:  Adriane F Haragan; Thomas C Hulsey; Angela F Hawk; Roger B Newman; Eugene Y Chang
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2015-03-25       Impact factor: 8.661

4.  Is there any relation between umbilical artery and vein diameter and estimated fetal weight in healthy pregnant women?

Authors:  Aydın Köşüş; Nermin Köşüş; Nilgün Ö Turhan
Journal:  J Med Ultrason (2001)       Date:  2012-05-09       Impact factor: 1.314

5.  The utility of ultrasound surveillance of fluid and growth in obese women.

Authors:  Lorie M Harper; Victoria C Jauk; John Owen; Joseph R Biggio
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-04-30       Impact factor: 8.661

6.  Impending macrosomia: will induction of labour modify the risk of caesarean delivery?

Authors:  Y W Cheng; T N Sparks; R K Laros; J M Nicholson; A B Caughey
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2012-01-18       Impact factor: 6.531

7.  Ultrasound (in)accuracy: it's in the formulae not in the technique - assessment of accuracy of abdominal circumference measurement in term pregnancies.

Authors:  Erin M Nesbitt-Hawes; Emma Tetstall; Kiera Gee; Alec W Welsh
Journal:  Australas J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2015-12-31

8.  Revealed versus concealed criteria for placental insufficiency in an unselected obstetric population in late pregnancy (RATIO37): randomised controlled trial study protocol.

Authors:  Francesc Figueras; Eduard Gratacos; Marta Rial; Ilan Gull; Ladislav Krofta; Marek Lubusky; Rogelio Cruz-Martinez; Mónica Cruz-Lemini; Miguel Martinez-Rodriguez; Pamela Socias; Cristina Aleuanlli; Mauro C Parra Cordero
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-06-15       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Protocol for the prospective observational clinical study: estimation of fetal weight by MRI to PREdict neonatal MACROsomia (PREMACRO study) and small-for-gestational age neonates.

Authors:  Caroline Kadji; Mieke M Cannie; Andrew Carlin; Jacques C Jani
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-03-27       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  Fundal height growth curve for thai women.

Authors:  Jirawan Deeluea; Supatra Sirichotiyakul; Sawaek Weerakiet; Renu Buntha; Chamaiporn Tawichasri; Jayanton Patumanond
Journal:  ISRN Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2013-04-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.