Literature DB >> 21898638

What are the limits of accuracy in fetal weight estimation with conventional biometry in two-dimensional ultrasound? A novel postpartum study.

S Kehl1, U Schmidt, S Spaich, R L Schild, M Sütterlin, J Siemer.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Commonly used formulae for fetal weight estimation, including combinations of several biometric parameters, lack accuracy despite efforts to improve them. This study aimed to investigate the limits of fetal weight estimation based on conventional biometric parameters on two-dimensional (2D) ultrasound by developing and evaluating new weight equations using postpartum biometric parameters.
METHODS: This was a prospective multicenter study including 628 singleton pregnancies at term. Inclusion criteria were healthy newborns with no physical or chromosomal malformations. Postpartum measurement of head circumference, abdominal circumference and thigh length was performed. Six 'best-fit' formulae were derived using forward regression analysis in a formula-finding group (n = 419), and their accuracy was compared with birth weight in an evaluation group (n = 209) using percentage error, absolute percentage error, limits of agreement and the proportion of weight estimations falling within a discrepancy level of ± 10%.
RESULTS: The new formulae showed no systematic error, with SD for the percentage error between 7.42 and 8.77 and no significant differences between median absolute percentage errors (4.84-5.71). They included 74.6-81.3% of neonates within a discrepancy level of 10%. With regard to the 95% limits of agreement, weight estimates were within a range of about ± 500 g.
CONCLUSION: These results show that a good sonographic weight formula has the following features: no systematic error, an SD of about 7% and inclusion of 80% of cases within a discrepancy level of 10%. The study indicates that the current accuracy of fetal weight estimation with conventional biometric parameters by 2D ultrasound has reached its limits. Further improvement will probably only be achieved through new approaches in ultrasonography.
Copyright © 2012 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 21898638     DOI: 10.1002/uog.10094

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


  5 in total

1.  A comparison of ultrasound with magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of fetal biometry and weight in the second trimester of pregnancy: An observer agreement and variability study.

Authors:  Jacqueline Matthew; Christina Malamateniou; Caroline L Knight; Kelly P Baruteau; Tara Fletcher; Alice Davidson; Laura McCabe; Dharmintra Pasupathy; Mary Rutherford
Journal:  Ultrasound       Date:  2018-01-29

2.  A Preliminary Study of Three-dimensional Sonographic Measurements of the Fetus.

Authors:  Udi Ergaz; Israel Goldstein; Michael Divon; Zeev Weiner
Journal:  Rambam Maimonides Med J       Date:  2015-04-29

3.  Observer Influence with Other Variables on the Accuracy of Ultrasound Estimation of Fetal Weight at Term.

Authors:  Mariola Sánchez-Fernández; Maria E Corral; Longinos Aceituno; Marina Mazheika; Nicolás Mendoza; Juan Mozas-Moreno
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2021-02-27       Impact factor: 2.430

4.  Accuracy of immediate antepartum ultrasound estimated fetal weight and its impact on mode of delivery and outcome - a cohort analysis.

Authors:  Johannes Stubert; Adam Peschel; Michael Bolz; Änne Glass; Bernd Gerber
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2018-05-02       Impact factor: 3.007

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

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.