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

被引:21
作者
Aviram, A. [1 ,2 ]
Yogev, Y. [1 ,2 ]
Ashwal, E. [1 ,2 ]
Hiersch, L. [1 ,2 ]
Danon, D. [2 ,3 ]
Hadar, E. [2 ,3 ]
Gabbay-Benziv, R. [4 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Lis Matern & Womens Hosp, Tel Aviv Sourasky Med Ctr, Tel Aviv, Israel
[2] Tel Aviv Univ, Sackler Fac Med, Tel Aviv, Israel
[3] Helen Schneider Hosp Women, Rabin Med Ctr, Petah Tiqwa, Israel
[4] Hillel Yaffe Med Ctr, Hadera, Israel
[5] Technion Israel Inst Technol, Ruth & Bruce Rapapport Fac Med, Haifa, Israel
关键词
FETAL WEIGHT-ESTIMATION; FEMUR LENGTH; SONOGRAPHIC ESTIMATION; HEAD MEASUREMENTS; GESTATIONAL-AGE; CHARTS; SIZE; EQUATIONS; ACCURACY; FETUS;
D O I
10.1038/jp.2017.134
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVE: The sonographic prediction of fetal macrosomia affects obstetrical decision regarding the timing and mode of delivery. We aimed to compare the accuracy of various formulas for prediction of macrosomia at different thresholds. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study of singleton gestations at term, with fetal biometrical measurements taken up to 7 days prior to delivery (2007 to 2014). Sonographic estimated fetal weight was calculated using 20 previously published formulas. Macrosomia prediction was evaluated for every formula utilizing: (1) measures of accuracy (sensitivity, specificity and so on); (2) comparison of the systematic and random errors (SE and RE), and the proportion of estimates within 10% of actual birth weight for macrosomic and non-macrosomic neonates. Performance measurements were evaluated for different macrosomia thresholds: 4000, 4250 and 4500 g. Best performing formula for every threshold was defined as the one with the lowest Euclidean distance (= SQRT(SE2+ RE2)). RESULTS: Out of 7977 women who met the inclusion criteria, 754 (9.4%) delivered a neonate weighing. 4000 g, 266 (3.3%) delivered a neonate weighing. 4250 g and 75 (0.9%) delivered a neonate weighing. 4500 g. Considerable variability was noted between the accuracy parameters of the different formulas, with Woo's formula integrating Abdominal circumference (AC) and femur length (FL) as the most sensitive formula with the highest negative predictive value for all thresholds and Woo's formula using AC, FL and biparietal diameter (BPD) as the most specific for all thresholds. The same formula also demonstrated the best overall accuracy. Regardless of threshold chosen, 80% or more of formulas demonstrated negative systematic error, meaning lower EFW than actual birthweight. As for the Euclidean distance, Hadlock's formula (AC, FL and BPD) ranked the highest for the 4000 and 4250 g thresholds, whereas Shepard's formula (AC and BPD) ranked the highest for the 4500 g threshold. CONCLUSION: Considerable variability exist between formulas for prediction of neonatal macrosomia. Formulas by Hadlock's and Shepard's utilizing AC, BPD +/- FL were most accurate for macrosomia prediction at 4000, 4250 and 4500 g thresholds, respectively.
引用
收藏
页码:1285 / 1291
页数:7
相关论文
共 31 条
  • [1] The accuracy of intrapartum ultrasonographic fetal weight estimation in diabetic pregnancies
    Alsulyman, OM
    Ouzounian, JG
    Kjos, SL
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1997, 177 (03) : 503 - 506
  • [2] Prediction of large for gestational age by various sonographic fetal weight estimation formulas-which should we use?
    Aviram, A.
    Yogev, Y.
    Ashwal, E.
    Hiersch, L.
    Hadar, E.
    Gabbay-Benziv, R.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PERINATOLOGY, 2017, 37 (05) : 513 - 517
  • [3] Macrosomic births in the United States: Determinants, outcomes, and proposed grades of risk
    Boulet, SL
    Alexander, GR
    Salihu, HM
    Pass, M
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2003, 188 (05) : 1372 - 1378
  • [4] Weight estimation for low birth weight fetuses and macrosomic fetuses in Chinese population
    Chen, Ping
    Yu, Jinhua
    Li, Xiaomin
    Wang, Yuanyuan
    Chang, Cai
    [J]. ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS, 2011, 284 (03) : 599 - 606
  • [5] CHARTS OF FETAL SIZE .3. ABDOMINAL MEASUREMENTS
    CHITTY, LS
    ALTMAN, DG
    HENDERSON, A
    CAMPBELL, S
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 1994, 101 (02): : 125 - 131
  • [6] CHARTS OF FETAL SIZE .4. FEMUR LENGTH
    CHITTY, LS
    ALTMAN, DG
    HENDERSON, A
    CAMPBELL, S
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 1994, 101 (02): : 132 - 135
  • [7] CHARTS OF FETAL SIZE .2. HEAD MEASUREMENTS
    CHITTY, LS
    ALTMAN, DG
    HENDERSON, T
    CAMPBELL, S
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 1994, 101 (01): : 35 - 43
  • [8] COMBS CA, 1993, OBSTET GYNECOL, V82, P365
  • [9] Dollberg S, 2005, ISRAEL MED ASSOC J, V7, P311
  • [10] El Khouly NI, 2016, J MATERN-FETAL NEO M, V22, P1