Literature DB >> 2653039

Estimation of birth weight by use of ultrasonographic formulas targeted to large-, appropriate-, and small-for-gestational-age fetuses.

R E Sabbagha1, J Minogue, R K Tamura, S A Hungerford.   

Abstract

This report sought to determine whether estimates of fetal weight are enhanced by using ultrasonographic formulas targeted to the large-, appropriate-, and small-for-gestational-age fetus in both preterm and term pregnancies. Ultrasonographic fetal measurements from 575 singleton pregnancies were obtained within 7 days of delivery. The first 194 fetuses were classified into three groups on the basis of the growth percentile rank of the abdominal circumference (greater than or equal to 90%, greater than 5% and less than 90%, and less than or equal to 5%). Regression analyses were performed to generate three formulas for estimating fetal weight on the basis of the following: Gestational age (weeks) + Head circumference (cm) + 2 x Abdominal circumference (cm) + Femur length (cm). This mathematic model allowed formulation of accurate and concise tables relating the sum of these measurements to estimated birth weight. The accuracy of these formulas was then prospectively compared, first, with the formula published by Hadlock et al. (in 32 large-, 279 appropriate-, and 70 small-for-gestational-age fetuses) and second, with the formula of Weiner et al. (in 82 preterm fetuses). The difference between actual and estimated birth weights generated by the three study formulas had no systemic error (t test, p greater than 0.05). Cumulatively, there was a statistically significant reduction of random error in the birth weight estimates by use of the three study formulas versus the best single formulas of Hadlock et al. (2 SD reduced from 21.6% to 19.8% and absolute 2 SD reduced from 15.6% to 12.2%). Additionally, the three study formulas resulted in a statistically significant reduction in the absolute 2 SD error compared with the best formula by Weiner et al. in fetuses less than or equal to 34 weeks' gestation (2 SD reduced from 19.1% to 13.6%).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2653039     DOI: 10.1016/0002-9378(89)90301-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  6 in total

1.  Comparison of Errors of 35 Weight Estimation Formulae in a Standard Collective.

Authors:  M Hoopmann; K O Kagan; A Sauter; H Abele; P Wagner
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 2.915

Review 2.  Morphological and functional evaluation of normal and abnormal fetal growth by ultrasonography.

Authors:  Toshiyuki Yoshizato; Shoji Satoh
Journal:  J Med Ultrason (2001)       Date:  2009-08-12       Impact factor: 1.314

Review 3.  Defining normal and abnormal fetal growth: promises and challenges.

Authors:  Jun Zhang; Mario Merialdi; Lawrence D Platt; Michael S Kramer
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-01-13       Impact factor: 8.661

4.  An informative probability model enhancing real time echobiometry to improve fetal weight estimation accuracy.

Authors:  G Cevenini; F M Severi; C Bocchi; F Petraglia; P Barbini
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2008-01-10       Impact factor: 2.602

5.  The management of error in ultrasound fetal growth monitoring.

Authors:  Nicholas J Dudley
Journal:  Ultrasound       Date:  2020-08-03

6.  Prospective verification of sonographic fetal weight estimators among term parturients in Uganda.

Authors:  Senai Goitom Sereke; Richard Okello Omara; Felix Bongomin; Sarah Nakubulwa; Harriet Nalubega Kisembo
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2021-03-04       Impact factor: 3.007

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.