Literature DB >> 7055171

An evaluation of two equations for predicting fetal weight by ultrasound.

M J Shepard, V A Richards, R L Berkowitz, S L Warsof, J C Hobbins.   

Abstract

In an earlier study we presented a method of determining fetal weight from ultrasound measurements of abdominal circumference (AC) and biparietal diameter (BPD). From an equation with these two measurements as independent variables we generated tables of estimated fetal weights (E1). Although these tables have been very useful, we had the impression we were underestimating fetal weight. Therefore, we reconsidered an earlier unpublished table generated from a different equation (E2). While most estimates from E1 and E2 were likely to be within 10% of actual weight, there was significant underestimation with E1. E2 provides a better balance between the distribution of overestimations and underestimations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1982        PMID: 7055171     DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9378(16)32283-9

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


  36 in total

Review 1.  Management of fetal growth restriction.

Authors:  M Alberry; P Soothill
Journal:  Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 5.747

2.  Universal late pregnancy ultrasound screening to predict adverse outcomes in nulliparous women: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

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

3.  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

4.  The influence of resuscitation preferences on obstetrical management of periviable deliveries.

Authors:  B Tucker Edmonds; F McKenzie; K S Hendrix; S M Perkins; G D Zimet
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2014-09-25       Impact factor: 2.521

Review 5.  Morphological and functional evaluation of normal and abnormal fetal growth by ultrasonography.

Authors:  Toshiyuki Yoshizato; Shoji Satoh
Journal:  J Med Ultrason (2001)       Date:  2009-08-12       Impact factor: 1.314

6.  Fetal weight estimation for prediction of fetal macrosomia: does additional clinical and demographic data using pattern recognition algorithm improve detection?

Authors:  Shimon Degani; Dori Peleg; Karina Bahous; Zvi Leibovitz; Israel Shapiro; Gonen Ohel
Journal:  J Prenat Med       Date:  2008-01

7.  Fetal Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic Models: Systems Information on Fetal Biometry and Gross Composition.

Authors:  Khaled Abduljalil; Trevor N Johnson; Amin Rostami-Hodjegan
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 6.447

8.  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

9.  Fetal weight normograms for singleton pregnancies in a Jordanian population.

Authors:  Nahla Subhi Al-Bayyari; Adel Taha Abu-Heija
Journal:  Ann Saudi Med       Date:  2010 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.526

10.  A modified prenatal growth assessment score for the evaluation of fetal growth in the third trimester using single and composite biometric parameters.

Authors:  Russell L Deter; Wesley Lee; Haleh Sangi-Haghpeykar; Adi L Tarca; Lami Yeo; Roberto Romero
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2014-07-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.