Literature DB >> 9840547

Screening for fetal growth restriction: a mathematical model of the effect of time interval and ultrasound error.

M Mongelli1, S Ek, R Tambyrajia.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We estimated the effect of ultrasound error and time interval between examinations on the false-positive rate for detecting fetal growth restriction (FGR).
METHODS: Using published growth curves for the fetal abdominal circumference and a coefficient of variation for ultrasound error of 5%, computer simulation was used to estimate false-positive rates in relation to the time interval between ultrasound examinations. Growth restriction was diagnosed when there was no apparent growth in fetal abdominal circumference between two consecutive examinations. In separate studies, the false-positive rate was plotted against gestational age at the first ultrasound examination.
RESULTS: There was a dramatic increase in false-positive rates as the time interval between examinations was reduced. When the initial scan was performed at 32 weeks, the false-positive rate increased from 3.2% for an interval of 4 weeks to 30.8% for an interval of 1 week. At a 2-week interval, the error was 16.9%. There was a significant increase in the false-positive rate as the gestational age at the initial ultrasound was increased. At 28 weeks, the false-positive rate with a 2-week interval was 11.8%, increasing to 24.1% at 38 weeks. By varying the coefficient of variation of the ultrasound error, the false-positive rate increased from 0.8% at an error of 2% to 31.9% at an error of 10%.
CONCLUSION: Ultrasound scanning at 2-week intervals is associated with false-positive rates for growth restriction in excess of 10%, increasing to much higher rates late in the third trimester. Improved screening performance should be attainable by increasing the interval between scans and reducing measurement errors.

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9840547     DOI: 10.1016/s0029-7844(98)00349-4

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


  6 in total

1.  Advances in mathematical models of fetal growth: implications for ultrasound practice.

Authors:  Max Mongelli; George Condous
Journal:  Australas J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2015-12-31

2.  Revealed versus concealed criteria for placental insufficiency in an unselected obstetric population in late pregnancy (RATIO37): randomised controlled trial study protocol.

Authors:  Francesc Figueras; Eduard Gratacos; Marta Rial; Ilan Gull; Ladislav Krofta; Marek Lubusky; Rogelio Cruz-Martinez; Mónica Cruz-Lemini; Miguel Martinez-Rodriguez; Pamela Socias; Cristina Aleuanlli; Mauro C Parra Cordero
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-06-15       Impact factor: 2.692

3.  Expected-value bias in routine third-trimester growth scans.

Authors:  L Drukker; R Droste; P Chatelain; J A Noble; A T Papageorghiou
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 7.299

4.  Intrauterine Growth Restriction. Guideline of the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (S2k-Level, AWMF Registry No. 015/080, October 2016).

Authors:  Sven Kehl; Jörg Dötsch; Kurt Hecher; Dietmar Schlembach; Dagmar Schmitz; Holger Stepan; Ulrich Gembruch
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2017-11-27       Impact factor: 2.915

5.  Precision Diagnostics by Affinity-Mass Spectrometry: A Novel Approach for Fetal Growth Restriction Screening During Pregnancy.

Authors:  Charles A Okai; Manuela Russ; Manja Wölter; Kristin Andresen; Werner Rath; Michael O Glocker; Ulrich Pecks
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2020-05-07       Impact factor: 4.241

6.  Fetal weight projection model to define growth velocity and validation against pregnancy outcome in a cohort of serially scanned pregnancies.

Authors:  O Hugh; J Gardosi
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2022-06-08       Impact factor: 8.678

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.