Mariola Sánchez-Fernández1, Maria E Corral1, Longinos Aceituno1, Marina Mazheika2, Nicolás Mendoza2, Juan Mozas-Moreno2,3,4,5. 1. Obstetrics and Gynecology Service, La Inmaculada Hospital, Huércal-Overa, 04600 Almería, Spain. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Granada, 18016 Granada, Spain. 3. Obstetrics and Gynecology Service, Virgen de las Nieves University Hospital, 18014 Granada, Spain. 4. Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology & Public Health (CIBER Epidemiology & Public Health-CIBERESP), 28029 Madrid, Spain. 5. Biohealth Research Institute (Ibs.GRANADA), 18014 Granada, Spain.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: The accuracy with which the estimation of fetal weight (EFW) at term is determined is useful in order to address obstetric complications, since it is a parameter that represents an important prognostic factor for perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the role of the experienced observers with other variables that could influence the accuracy of the ultrasound used to calculate EFW at term, carried out within a period of seven days prior to delivery, in order to assess interobserver variability. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed including 1144 pregnancies at term. The validity of the ultrasound used to calculate EFW at term was analyzed using simple error, absolute error, percentage error and absolute percentage error, as well as the percentage of predictions with an error less than 10 and 15% in relation to maternal, obstetric and ultrasound variables. Results: Valid predictions with an error less than 10 and 15% were 74.7 and 89.7% respectively, with such precision decreasing according to the observer as well as in extreme fetal weights. The remaining variables were not significant in ultrasound EFW at term. The simple error, absolute error, percentage error and absolute percentage error were greater in cases of extreme fetal weights, with a tendency to overestimate the low weights and underestimate the high weights. Conclusions: The accuracy of EFW with ultrasound carried out within seven days prior to birth is not affected by maternal or obstetric variables, or by the time interval between the ultrasound and delivery. However, accuracy was reduced by the observers and in extreme fetal weights.
Background and Objectives: The accuracy with which the estimation of fetal weight (EFW) at term is determined is useful in order to address obstetric complications, since it is a parameter that represents an important prognostic factor for perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the role of the experienced observers with other variables that could influence the accuracy of the ultrasound used to calculate EFW at term, carried out within a period of seven days prior to delivery, in order to assess interobserver variability. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed including 1144 pregnancies at term. The validity of the ultrasound used to calculate EFW at term was analyzed using simple error, absolute error, percentage error and absolute percentage error, as well as the percentage of predictions with an error less than 10 and 15% in relation to maternal, obstetric and ultrasound variables. Results: Valid predictions with an error less than 10 and 15% were 74.7 and 89.7% respectively, with such precision decreasing according to the observer as well as in extreme fetal weights. The remaining variables were not significant in ultrasound EFW at term. The simple error, absolute error, percentage error and absolute percentage error were greater in cases of extreme fetal weights, with a tendency to overestimate the low weights and underestimate the high weights. Conclusions: The accuracy of EFW with ultrasound carried out within seven days prior to birth is not affected by maternal or obstetric variables, or by the time interval between the ultrasound and delivery. However, accuracy was reduced by the observers and in extreme fetal weights.
Authors: Nathan R Blue; Mariam Savabi; Meghan E Beddow; Vivek R Katukuri; Cody M Fritts; Luis A Izquierdo; Conrad R Chao Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2018-09-23 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: U Dammer; T W Goecke; F Voigt; M Schmid; A Mayr; R L Schild; M W Beckmann; F Faschingbauer Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet Date: 2012-12-06 Impact factor: 2.344