Assessment of the Accuracy of Multiple Sonographic Fetal Weight Estimation Formulas A 10-Year Experience From a Single Center

被引:1
作者
Barel, Oshri [1 ]
Vaknin, Zvi [1 ]
Tovbin, Josef [1 ]
Herman, Arie [1 ]
Maymon, Ron [1 ]
机构
[1] Assaf Harofeh Med Ctr, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, IL-70300 Zerifin, Israel
关键词
accuracy; estimation; fetal weight; models; sonography; TERM BIRTH-WEIGHT; ULTRASONIC ESTIMATION; FEMUR LENGTH; MATERNAL CHARACTERISTICS; HEAD MEASUREMENTS; PREDICTION; CIRCUMFERENCE; CHARTS; SIZE; MODEL;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
O42 [声学];
学科分类号
070206 ; 082403 ;
摘要
Objectives-The primary aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of sonographic fetal weight estimation models. The secondary aim was to define the most accurate time (4-7 or 3 days before delivery) for evaluating fetal weight. Methods-In this retrospective cohort study, a total of 12,798 sonographic fetal weight estimations were analyzed, of which 9459 were performed within 3 days of delivery and 3339 within 4 to 7 days. The cohort included all singleton pregnancies recorded at a single medical center from January 2000 to December 2010, with 24 weeks' gestation minimum. Predicted birth weights were calculated according to 23 sonographic fetal weight estimation models; in total, 294,354 sonographic weight estimations were evaluated and compared to the actual birth weights. Results-The accuracy of the models in predicting birth weight differed considerably. The most accurate models used 3 or more fetal measurements followed by models using abdominal circumference only. The models developed by Sabbagha et al (Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 160:854-862) proved most accurate, with a mean percent error of-0.2% and greater than 92% of estimates within 15% of birth weight (P<.05). Nineteen sonographic fetal weight estimation models (82.6%) better predicted fetal weight at 4 to 7 days before delivery (P<.001). Twenty-two (95%) of the models were less accurate at the extreme ends of fetal weight. Conclusions-Different formulas for fetal weight estimation vary greatly; we recommend that each center should evaluate the most accurate formula according to its attending population. Estimation of fetal weight performed 4 to 7 days before delivery using most models was more accurate than estimations performed 3 days before delivery.
引用
收藏
页码:815 / 823
页数:9
相关论文
共 34 条
[1]   Applying the right statistics: analyses of measurement studies [J].
Bland, JM ;
Altman, DG .
ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2003, 22 (01) :85-93
[2]   ULTRASONIC MEASUREMENT OF FETAL ABDOMEN CIRCUMFERENCE IN ESTIMATION OF FETAL WEIGHT [J].
CAMPBELL, S ;
WILKIN, D .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 1975, 82 (09) :689-697
[3]   INTRAPARTUM DETECTION OF A MACROSOMIC FETUS - CLINICAL VERSUS 8 SONOGRAPHIC MODELS [J].
CHAUHAN, SP ;
COWAN, BD ;
MAGANN, EF ;
BRADFORD, TH ;
ROBERTS, WE ;
MORRISON, JC .
AUSTRALIAN & NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY, 1995, 35 (03) :266-270
[4]   CHARTS OF FETAL SIZE .3. ABDOMINAL MEASUREMENTS [J].
CHITTY, LS ;
ALTMAN, DG ;
HENDERSON, A ;
CAMPBELL, S .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 1994, 101 (02) :125-131
[5]   CHARTS OF FETAL SIZE .4. FEMUR LENGTH [J].
CHITTY, LS ;
ALTMAN, DG ;
HENDERSON, A ;
CAMPBELL, S .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 1994, 101 (02) :132-135
[6]   CHARTS OF FETAL SIZE .2. HEAD MEASUREMENTS [J].
CHITTY, LS ;
ALTMAN, DG ;
HENDERSON, T ;
CAMPBELL, S .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 1994, 101 (01) :35-43
[7]  
COMBS CA, 1993, OBSTET GYNECOL, V82, P365
[8]   A systematic review of the ultrasound estimation of fetal weight [J].
Dudley, NJ .
ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2005, 25 (01) :80-89
[9]   ESTIMATION OF FETAL WEIGHT WITH THE USE OF HEAD, BODY, AND FEMUR MEASUREMENTS - A PROSPECTIVE-STUDY [J].
HADLOCK, FP ;
HARRIST, RB ;
SHARMAN, RS ;
DETER, RL ;
PARK, SK .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1985, 151 (03) :333-337
[10]   SONOGRAPHIC ESTIMATION OF FETAL WEIGHT - THE VALUE OF FEMUR LENGTH IN ADDITION TO HEAD AND ABDOMEN MEASUREMENTS [J].
HADLOCK, FP ;
HARRIST, RB ;
CARPENTER, RJ ;
DETER, RL ;
PARK, SK .
RADIOLOGY, 1984, 150 (02) :535-540