Literature DB >> 3618691

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

A M Vintzileos, W A Campbell, J F Rodis, R Bors-Koefoed, D J Nochimson.   

Abstract

Most current sonographic techniques for estimating fetal weight involve measurements of the head, abdomen, and femur length both alone and in combination. The value of the fetal thigh circumference measurement in addition to the head, abdominal, and femur length measurements has not been investigated previously. Eighty-nine patients were scanned within 72 hours of delivery, and the following ultrasonic fetal parameters were obtained in all fetuses: biparietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference, femur length, and thigh circumference. With multiple stepwise regression analysis, the best-fit formulas were developed with one, two, three, four, and five parameters, respectively. The best results were obtained by combining measurements of all five parameters: biparietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference, femur length, and thigh circumference. The mean error of this formula was 6%, the mean deviation 0.3%, and the SD 7.8%. These data suggest that the addition of thigh circumference to measurements of the head, abdomen, and femur length improves the accuracy of fetal weight estimates.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3618691     DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9378(87)80182-5

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


  9 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.  Individualized growth assessment: conceptual framework and practical implementation for the evaluation of fetal growth and neonatal growth outcome.

Authors:  Russell L Deter; Wesley Lee; Lami Yeo; Offer Erez; Uma Ramamurthy; Medha Naik; Roberto Romero
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 8.661

3.  Reference values of fetal ultrasound biometry: results of a prospective cohort study in Lithuania.

Authors:  Bronius Žaliūnas; Vaidilė Jakaitė; Juozas Kurmanavičius; Daiva Bartkevičienė; Kristina Norvilaitė; Karolina Passerini
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2022-02-27       Impact factor: 2.493

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

Authors:  A Aviram; Y Yogev; E Ashwal; L Hiersch; D Danon; E Hadar; R Gabbay-Benziv
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2017-09-14       Impact factor: 2.521

5.  Ultrasound (in)accuracy: it's in the formulae not in the technique - assessment of accuracy of abdominal circumference measurement in term pregnancies.

Authors:  Erin M Nesbitt-Hawes; Emma Tetstall; Kiera Gee; Alec W Welsh
Journal:  Australas J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2015-12-31

6.  Ultrasonography-based Fetal Weight Estimation: Finding an Appropriate Model for an Indian Population.

Authors:  Sujitkumar S Hiwale; Hemant Misra; Shrutin Ulman
Journal:  J Med Ultrasound       Date:  2016-12-15

7.  Birth weight prediction models for the different gestational age stages in a Chinese population.

Authors:  Chunhui Li; Yang Peng; Bin Zhang; Weiying Ji; Li Li; Jianhua Gong; Wei Xia; Yuanyuan Li; Shuna Jin; Ranran Song; Youjie Wang; Shunqing Xu
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-07-25       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Ensemble Learning to Improve the Prediction of Fetal Macrosomia and Large-for-Gestational Age.

Authors:  Shangyuan Ye; Hui Zhang; Fuyan Shi; Jing Guo; Suzhen Wang; Bo Zhang
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2020-01-31       Impact factor: 4.241

9.  Hepato - Cephalic Index as a Predictor of Intrauterine Growth Restriction.

Authors:  Ramadan Dacaj; Sebija Izetbegovic; Goran Stojkanovic; Curr Gjocaj
Journal:  Acta Inform Med       Date:  2016-02-02
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.