Literature DB >> 32549897

Are ultrasound foetal circumference measurement methods interchangeable?

Nicholas John Dudley1.   

Abstract

A variety of methods is available for the ultrasound measurement of foetal circumferences; ellipse fitting and derived measurements are often used interchangeably based on an assumption of equivalence, despite evidence that results may differ. The aim of this study was to investigate the differences between ellipse fitting and derived circumferences in clinical practice. Head and abdominal circumferences originally measured using ellipse fitting were retrospectively derived from anterior-posterior and transverse diameters using a widely used formula. Where the necessary measurements were available, foetal weight was estimated. Differences between ellipse fitted and derived measurements were compared using Bland-Altman plots. Images from 65 patients (gestational age 20 to 40 weeks) were collected; four head circumference and five abdominal circumference images were excluded due to poor image quality. Data were available for estimated foetal weight calculation for 48 patients. There were small systematic differences between ellipse fitted and derived measurements. Random differences varied between 20 week scans, early growth scans and later growth scans, so were analysed in these three groups. The 95% confidence intervals were ±6 mm (±3%), ±7 mm (±2%) and ±20 mm (±6%) for head circumference at 20 weeks, earlier growth scans and later scans, respectively; the 95% confidence intervals for abdominal circumference were ±7 mm (±5%), ±11 mm (±5%) and ±17 mm (±6%) and for estimated foetal weight were ±23 g (±6%), ±69 g (±5%) and ±311 g (±12%). Foetal circumference measurement methods are not interchangeable. The derived method should be used where size, growth and estimated foetal weight charts are based on this method. © The British Medical Ultrasound Society 2019.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Ultrasound; abdominal circumference; foetal measurement; foetal weight; head circumference

Year:  2019        PMID: 32549897      PMCID: PMC7273883          DOI: 10.1177/1742271X19837307

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrasound        ISSN: 1742-271X


  14 in total

1.  Intra- and interobserver variability in fetal ultrasound measurements.

Authors:  I Sarris; C Ioannou; P Chamberlain; E Ohuma; F Roseman; L Hoch; D G Altman; A T Papageorghiou
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 7.299

2.  Standardization of fetal ultrasound biometry measurements: improving the quality and consistency of measurements.

Authors:  I Sarris; C Ioannou; M Dighe; A Mitidieri; M Oberto; W Qingqing; J Shah; S Sohoni; W Al Zidjali; L Hoch; D G Altman; A T Papageorghiou
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 7.299

3.  Practice guidelines for performance of the routine mid-trimester fetal ultrasound scan.

Authors:  L J Salomon; Z Alfirevic; V Berghella; C Bilardo; E Hernandez-Andrade; S L Johnsen; K Kalache; K-Y Leung; G Malinger; H Munoz; F Prefumo; A Toi; W Lee
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 7.299

4.  Estimation of fetal weight: reference range at 20-36 weeks' gestation and comparison with actual birth-weight reference range.

Authors:  L J Salomon; J P Bernard; Y Ville
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 7.299

5.  Automatic image quality assessment and measurement of fetal head in two-dimensional ultrasound image.

Authors:  Lei Zhang; Nicholas J Dudley; Tryphon Lambrou; Nigel Allinson; Xujiong Ye
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2017-04-17

6.  Optimal caliper placement: manual vs automated methods.

Authors:  B Yazdi; P Zanker; P Wanger; J Sonek; K Pintoffl; M Hoopmann; K O Kagan
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 7.299

7.  Finding the most accurate method to measure head circumference for fetal weight estimation.

Authors:  Ulrike Schmidt; Dunja Temerinac; Katharina Bildstein; Benjamin Tuschy; Jade Mayer; Marc Sütterlin; Jörn Siemer; Sven Kehl
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  2014-04-14       Impact factor: 2.435

8.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Charts of fetal size: 2. Head measurements.

Authors:  L S Chitty; D G Altman; A Henderson; S Campbell
Journal:  Br J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  1994-01

10.  Charts of fetal size: 3. Abdominal measurements.

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

1.  Peer review of third trimester abdominal circumference measurements.

Authors:  Ellen Dyer; Trish Chudleigh
Journal:  Ultrasound       Date:  2020-09-22

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

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

3.  Caveats in the monitoring of fetal growth using ultrasound estimated fetal weight.

Authors:  Nicholas John Dudley; Helen Varley
Journal:  Ultrasound       Date:  2020-09-11
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.