A Aviram1,2, Y Yogev1,2, E Ashwal1,2, L Hiersch1,2, E Hadar2,3, R Gabbay-Benziv2,3. 1. Lis Maternity and Women's Hospital, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel. 2. Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. 3. Helen Schneider Hospital for Women, Rabin Medical Center, Petah-Tikva, Israel.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: As sonographic estimation of fetal weight (EFW) carries substantial impact, especially in large-for-gestational-age (LGA) neonates, we aimed to compare the accuracy of various formulas for prediction of LGA neonates. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of singleton gestations at term, with EFW up to 7 days before delivery (2007 to 2014). Small-for-gestational-age neonates were excluded. LGA prediction for various formulas was evaluated by: (i) measures of performance (sensitivity, specificity, etc.); (ii) systematic and random errors (SE and RE) and the proportion of estimates (POEs) exceeding 10% of actual birth weight. Best performing formula was defined as the one with the lowest Euclidean distance [=square root of (SE2+RE2)]. RESULTS: Out of 62 102 deliveries, 7996 met inclusion criteria, of which 1618 neonates were LGA (22%). There was a considerable variation in sensitivity (74.6±16.3%, 23.5% to 99%), specificity (86.3±10.6%, 51.7% to 99.6%), positive predictive value (64.9±12.4%, 35.6% to 93.8%), positive likelihood ratio (LR; 9.3±10.9, 2.1 to 54.2) and negative LR (0.3±0.16, 0.02 to 0.8), a mild variation in the negative predictive value (92.9±3.7%, 82.3% to 99.5%) and a minimal variation in the area under the curve (94.3%, 93.0 to 95.1; mean±s.d., range for all). Absolute SE was higher for the LGA group in 11/20 formulas (55%). The RE and POE were lower in 19/20 (95%) and 14/20 (70%) for the LGA neonates, respectively. CONCLUSION: There is a wide variation in EFW formulas performance for detecting LGA. Hadlock's formula (1985) combining abdominal circumference, femur length and biparietal diameter ranked highest.
OBJECTIVE: As sonographic estimation of fetal weight (EFW) carries substantial impact, especially in large-for-gestational-age (LGA) neonates, we aimed to compare the accuracy of various formulas for prediction of LGA neonates. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of singleton gestations at term, with EFW up to 7 days before delivery (2007 to 2014). Small-for-gestational-age neonates were excluded. LGA prediction for various formulas was evaluated by: (i) measures of performance (sensitivity, specificity, etc.); (ii) systematic and random errors (SE and RE) and the proportion of estimates (POEs) exceeding 10% of actual birth weight. Best performing formula was defined as the one with the lowest Euclidean distance [=square root of (SE2+RE2)]. RESULTS: Out of 62 102 deliveries, 7996 met inclusion criteria, of which 1618 neonates were LGA (22%). There was a considerable variation in sensitivity (74.6±16.3%, 23.5% to 99%), specificity (86.3±10.6%, 51.7% to 99.6%), positive predictive value (64.9±12.4%, 35.6% to 93.8%), positive likelihood ratio (LR; 9.3±10.9, 2.1 to 54.2) and negative LR (0.3±0.16, 0.02 to 0.8), a mild variation in the negative predictive value (92.9±3.7%, 82.3% to 99.5%) and a minimal variation in the area under the curve (94.3%, 93.0 to 95.1; mean±s.d., range for all). Absolute SE was higher for the LGA group in 11/20 formulas (55%). The RE and POE were lower in 19/20 (95%) and 14/20 (70%) for the LGA neonates, respectively. CONCLUSION: There is a wide variation in EFW formulas performance for detecting LGA. Hadlock's formula (1985) combining abdominal circumference, femur length and biparietal diameter ranked highest.
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
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
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