Literature DB >> 28906497

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

A Aviram1,2, Y Yogev1,2, E Ashwal1,2, L Hiersch1,2, D Danon2,3, E Hadar2,3, R Gabbay-Benziv4,5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The sonographic prediction of fetal macrosomia affects obstetrical decision regarding the timing and mode of delivery. We aimed to compare the accuracy of various formulas for prediction of macrosomia at different thresholds. STUDY
DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study of singleton gestations at term, with fetal biometrical measurements taken up to 7 days prior to delivery (2007 to 2014). Sonographic estimated fetal weight was calculated using 20 previously published formulas. Macrosomia prediction was evaluated for every formula utilizing: (1) measures of accuracy (sensitivity, specificity and so on); (2) comparison of the systematic and random errors (SE and RE), and the proportion of estimates within 10% of actual birth weight for macrosomic and non-macrosomic neonates. Performance measurements were evaluated for different macrosomia thresholds: 4000, 4250 and 4500 g. Best performing formula for every threshold was defined as the one with the lowest Euclidean distance (=SQRT(SE2+RE2)).
RESULTS: Out of 7977 women who met the inclusion criteria, 754 (9.4%) delivered a neonate weighing ⩾4000 g, 266 (3.3%) delivered a neonate weighing⩾4250 g and 75 (0.9%) delivered a neonate weighing⩾4500 g. Considerable variability was noted between the accuracy parameters of the different formulas, with Woo's formula integrating Abdominal circumference (AC) and femur length (FL) as the most sensitive formula with the highest negative predictive value for all thresholds and Woo's formula using AC, FL and biparietal diameter (BPD) as the most specific for all thresholds. The same formula also demonstrated the best overall accuracy. Regardless of threshold chosen, 80% or more of formulas demonstrated negative systematic error, meaning lower EFW than actual birthweight. As for the Euclidean distance, Hadlock's formula (AC, FL and BPD) ranked the highest for the 4000 and 4250 g thresholds, whereas Shepard's formula (AC and BPD) ranked the highest for the 4500 g threshold.
CONCLUSION: Considerable variability exist between formulas for prediction of neonatal macrosomia. Formulas by Hadlock's and Shepard's utilizing AC, BPD±FL were most accurate for macrosomia prediction at 4000, 4250 and 4500 g thresholds, respectively.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28906497     DOI: 10.1038/jp.2017.134

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Perinatol        ISSN: 0743-8346            Impact factor:   2.521


  31 in total

1.  Statistical limits in sonographic estimation of birth weight.

Authors:  Marco Scioscia; Floriano Scioscia; Gaetano Scioscia; Stefano Bettocchi
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2014-07-29       Impact factor: 2.344

Review 2.  Third trimester ultrasound soft-tissue measurements accurately predicts macrosomia.

Authors:  Giuseppe Maria Maruotti; Gabriele Saccone; Pasquale Martinelli
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2016-06-13

3.  Prediction of Small for Gestational Age: Accuracy of Different Sonographic Fetal Weight Estimation Formulas.

Authors:  Rinat Gabbay-Benziv; Amir Aviram; Ron Bardin; Eran Ashwal; Nir Melamed; Liran Hiersch; Arnon Wiznitzer; Yariv Yogev; Eran Hadar
Journal:  Fetal Diagn Ther       Date:  2016-03-05       Impact factor: 2.587

4.  Fetal weight estimation formulas with head, abdominal, femur, and thigh circumference measurements.

Authors:  A M Vintzileos; W A Campbell; J F Rodis; R Bors-Koefoed; D J Nochimson
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1987-08       Impact factor: 8.661

5.  Comparison of fetal weight estimation formulas with and without head measurements.

Authors:  S L Warsof; P Wolf; J Coulehan; J T Queenan
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1986-04       Impact factor: 7.661

6.  Formulas for fetal weight estimation by ultrasound measurements based on neonatal specific gravities and volumes.

Authors:  N Shinozuka; T Okai; S Kohzuma; M Mukubo; C T Shih; T Maeda; Y Kuwabara; M Mizuno
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1987-11       Impact factor: 8.661

Review 7.  Sonographic estimation of fetal weight based on a model of fetal volume.

Authors:  C A Combs; R K Jaekle; B Rosenn; M Pope; M Miodovnik; T A Siddiqi
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 7.661

8.  Charts of fetal size: 4. Femur length.

Authors:  L S Chitty; D G Altman; A Henderson; S Campbell
Journal:  Br J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  1994-02

9.  Computer-assisted evaluation of ultrasonic fetal weight prediction using multiple regression equations with and without the fetal femur length.

Authors:  J S Woo; C W Wan; K M Cho
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  1985-02       Impact factor: 2.153

10.  Macrosomic births in the united states: determinants, outcomes, and proposed grades of risk.

Authors:  Sheree L Boulet; Greg R Alexander; Hamisu M Salihu; MaryAnn Pass
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 8.661

View more
  1 in total

1.  The Relationship between Fetal Abdominal Wall Thickness and Intrapartum Complications amongst Mothers with Pregestational Type 2 Diabetes.

Authors:  E Paige Isabey; Christy L Pylypjuk
Journal:  J Diabetes Res       Date:  2021-05-31       Impact factor: 4.011

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.