Literature DB >> 21229567

Prediction of fetal macrosomia: effect of sonographic fetal weight-estimation model and threshold used.

N Melamed1, Y Yogev, I Meizner, R Mashiach, J Pardo, A Ben-Haroush.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of 21 sonographic fetal weight-estimation models and abdominal circumference (AC) as a single measure for the prediction of fetal macrosomia (> 4000 g) using either fixed or optimal model-specific thresholds.
METHODS: A total of 4765 sonographic weight estimations performed within 3 days prior to delivery were analyzed. The predictive accuracy of 21 published sonographic fetal weight-estimation models was calculated using three different thresholds: a fixed threshold of 4000 g; a model-specific threshold obtained from the inflexion point of the receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curve; and a model-specific threshold associated with the highest overall accuracy. Cluster analysis was used to determine whether a certain combination of fetal biometric indices is associated with a higher predictive accuracy than others.
RESULTS: For a fixed threshold of > 4000 g, there was considerable variation among the models in sensitivity (range, 13.6-98.5%) and specificity (range, 63.6-99.8%) for fetal macrosomia. Use of the threshold derived from the inflexion point of the ROC curve decreased the intermodel variation to a minimum (sensitivity, 84.4-91.4%; and specificity, 79.5-86.3%). Even when this optimal model-specific threshold was applied, models based on three to four biometric indices were more accurate than were models based on only two biometric indices or on AC as a single measure (P=0.03).
CONCLUSIONS: Sonographic fetal weight-estimation models based on three to four biometric indices appear to be more accurate than are models based on two indices or on AC as a single measure, for the diagnosis of macrosomia. In these cases, the use of an optimal, model-specific threshold is associated with a higher degree of accuracy than is the uniform use of a fixed threshold of an estimated weight of > 4000 g.
Copyright © 2011 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21229567     DOI: 10.1002/uog.8930

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


  8 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.  Timing of delivery in women with diabetes in pregnancy.

Authors:  Howard Berger; Nir Melamed
Journal:  Obstet Med       Date:  2014-01-15

3.  FIGO (international Federation of Gynecology and obstetrics) initiative on fetal growth: best practice advice for screening, diagnosis, and management of fetal growth restriction.

Authors:  Nir Melamed; Ahmet Baschat; Yoav Yinon; Apostolos Athanasiadis; Federico Mecacci; Francesc Figueras; Vincenzo Berghella; Amala Nazareth; Muna Tahlak; H David McIntyre; Fabrício Da Silva Costa; Anne B Kihara; Eran Hadar; Fionnuala McAuliffe; Mark Hanson; Ronald C Ma; Rachel Gooden; Eyal Sheiner; Anil Kapur; Hema Divakar; Diogo Ayres-de-Campos; Liran Hiersch; Liona C Poon; John Kingdom; Roberto Romero; Moshe Hod
Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet       Date:  2021-03       Impact factor: 3.561

4.  Different formulas, different thresholds and different performance-the prediction of macrosomia by ultrasound.

Authors:  A Aviram; Y Yogev; E Ashwal; L Hiersch; D Danon; E Hadar; R Gabbay-Benziv
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2017-09-14       Impact factor: 2.521

5.  A modified prenatal growth assessment score for the evaluation of fetal growth in the third trimester using single and composite biometric parameters.

Authors:  Russell L Deter; Wesley Lee; Haleh Sangi-Haghpeykar; Adi L Tarca; Lami Yeo; Roberto Romero
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2014-07-11

6.  The rates and medical necessity of cesarean delivery in China, 2012-2019: an inspiration from Jiangsu.

Authors:  Ci Song; Yan Xu; Yuqing Ding; Yanfang Zhang; Na Liu; Lin Li; Zhun Li; Jiangbo Du; Hua You; Hongxia Ma; Guangfu Jin; Xudong Wang; Hongbing Shen; Yuan Lin; Xiaoqing Jiang; Zhibin Hu
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2021-01-25       Impact factor: 8.775

7.  A predictive model of macrosomic birth based upon real-world clinical data from pregnant women.

Authors:  Gao Jing; Shi Huwei; Chen Chao; Chen Lei; Wang Ping; Xiao Zhongzhou; Yang Sen; Chen Jiayuan; Chen Ruiyao; Lu Lu; Luo Shuqing; Yang Kaixiang; Xu Jie; Cheng Weiwei
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2022-08-18       Impact factor: 3.105

8.  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

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.