Literature DB >> 9464724

Limitations of clinical and sonographic estimates of birth weight: experience with 1034 parturients.

S P Chauhan1, N W Hendrix, E F Magann, J C Morrison, S P Kenney, L D Devoe.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of clinical and sonographic estimates of fetal weight made throughout the third trimester of pregnancy.
METHODS: Patients in early labor had fetal weight estimated by two approaches: 1) clinical evaluation and palpation followed by 2) sonographic mensuration of fetal biparietal diameter, abdominal circumference, and femur length applied to Hadlock's formula. The accuracy of these two methods of estimating fetal weight was compared using Student t test, Wilcoxon test, and chi2 tests. P < .05 was considered significant. Prediction limits (50th, 90th, and 95th percentiles) were calculated for both techniques by obtaining the range of actual weights associated for a particular estimated fetal weight (EFW).
RESULTS: We enrolled 1034 parturients whose clinical EFWs yielded significantly higher mean (+/- standard deviation) simple error (48.2 +/- 411 g) and standardized absolute error (130 +/- 122 g/kg) than were obtained by use of sonographic formulas for EFW (-6.6 +/- 381 g and 104 +/- 89 g/kg, respectively). When the population was partitioned by gestational age, we found that sonographic EFW was more accurate than clinical EFW in preterm (n = 373) but not in term (n = 460) or post-term (n = 201) pregnancies. Prediction limits indicate that for a given EFW, for example, 800 g, the 90% ranges of actual weight based on clinical and sonographic EFW are 566-1829 g and 469-1667 g, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The apparent superiority of sonographic EFW over clinical EFW applies principally to preterm pregnancies. The prediction limitation calculation suggests that either method, for any particular estimate between 500 and 4500 g, has limited value in the estimation of actual birth weight, because this outcome is highly variable and frequently lies outside of the useful bandwidth (+/- 10%) for prospective management.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9464724     DOI: 10.1016/s0029-7844(97)00590-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  10 in total

1.  Ultrasound versus Clinical Examination to Estimate Fetal Weight at Term.

Authors:  Jan-Simon Lanowski; Gabriele Lanowski; Cordula Schippert; Kristina Drinkut; Peter Hillemanns; Ismini Staboulidou
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 2.915

2.  Diagnostic accuracy of fundal height and handheld ultrasound-measured abdominal circumference to screen for fetal growth abnormalities.

Authors:  Adriane F Haragan; Thomas C Hulsey; Angela F Hawk; Roger B Newman; Eugene Y Chang
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2015-03-25       Impact factor: 8.661

3.  The utility of ultrasound surveillance of fluid and growth in obese women.

Authors:  Lorie M Harper; Victoria C Jauk; John Owen; Joseph R Biggio
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-04-30       Impact factor: 8.661

4.  Neonatal Morbidity of Small- and Large-for-Gestational-Age Neonates Born at Term in Uncomplicated Pregnancies.

Authors:  Suneet P Chauhan; Madeline Murguia Rice; William A Grobman; Jennifer Bailit; Uma M Reddy; Ronald J Wapner; Michael W Varner; John M Thorp; Kenneth J Leveno; Steve N Caritis; Mona Prasad; Alan T N Tita; George Saade; Yoram Sorokin; Dwight J Rouse; Jorge E Tolosa
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 5.  Accuracy of ultrasound in estimating fetal weight in New Zealand.

Authors:  Sarah Benson-Cooper; Gregory P Tarr; Joanne Kelly; Colleen J Bergin
Journal:  Australas J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2021-01-12

6.  An informative probability model enhancing real time echobiometry to improve fetal weight estimation accuracy.

Authors:  G Cevenini; F M Severi; C Bocchi; F Petraglia; P Barbini
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2008-01-10       Impact factor: 2.602

7.  Accuracy of ultrasound estimation of fetal weight at term: A comparison of shepard and hadlock methods.

Authors:  Abalaka A Aye; Teddy E Agida; Akinola A Babalola; Aliyu Y Isah; Nathaniel David Adewole
Journal:  Ann Afr Med       Date:  2022 Jan-Mar

8.  Analysis of the effectiveness of ultrasound and clinical examination methods in fetal weight estimation for term pregnancies.

Authors:  Mehmet Zahran; Yusuf Aytaç Tohma; Salim Erkaya; Özlem Evliyaoğlu; Eser Çolak; Bora Çoşkun
Journal:  Turk J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2015-12-15

9.  Effects of gestational diabetes mellitus on risk of adverse maternal outcomes: a prospective cohort study in Northwest Ethiopia.

Authors:  Achenef Asmamaw Muche; Oladapo O Olayemi; Yigzaw Kebede Gete
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2020-02-03       Impact factor: 3.007

10.  Clinical versus sonographic estimation of foetal weight in southwest Nigeria.

Authors:  Akinola S Shittu; Oluwafemi Kuti; Ernest O Orji; Niyi O Makinde; Solomon O Ogunniy; Oluwagbemiga O Ayoola; Salami S Sule
Journal:  J Health Popul Nutr       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 2.000

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.