Validity of ultrasound estimation of fetal weight

被引:83
作者
Chien, PFW [1 ]
Owen, P
Khan, KS
机构
[1] Univ Dundee, Ninewells Hosp & Med Sch, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Dundee DD1 9SY, Tayside, Scotland
[2] Stobhill Gen Hosp, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Glasgow G21 3UW, Lanark, Scotland
[3] Univ Birmingham, Div Reprod & Child Hlth, Birmingham, W Midlands, England
关键词
D O I
10.1016/S0029-7844(00)00828-0
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Objective: To assess the validity of ultrasound estimation of fetal weight at term. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study whereby all ultrasonic biometric measurements were done by a single observer. Fifty pregnant women at term had ultrasonic measurement of various fetal biometric parameters performed within a week of delivery. Fetal weight was estimated by the use of four reported methods (Aoki, Campbell, Shepard, and Hadlock formulas). We compared estimated weight with the birth weight after the estimated fetal weight was adjusted by adding 25 g for each day between the ultrasound measurements and delivery. Results: The adjusted estimated fetal weight obtained from all four formulas tended to be lower than measured birth weight. The smallest mean difference was obtained with the Shepard and Aoki formulas (51.4 g and 60.5 g, respectively), whereas the Campbell and Hadlock formulas produced larger mean differences (141.8 g and 190.7 g, respectively). The Aoki formula generated the smallest range between the limits of agreement (-324.2 to 445.2 g) whereas the Campbell formula produced the largest range (-286.5 to 570.1 g). The range between the limits of agreement generated with the Shepard and Hadlock formulas were intermediate between those produced by the Aoki and Campbell formulas. The intraclass correlation coefficients generated with the Aoki and Shepard formulas were identical (0.90). The intraclass correlation coefficients obtained with the Hadlock (0.84) and Campbell formulas (0.85) were lower. Conclusion: The validity of ultrasonic estimation of fetal weight at term with all four formulas was high. (Obstet Gynecol 2000;95:856-60. (C) 2000 by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists).
引用
收藏
页码:856 / 860
页数:5
相关论文
共 22 条
  • [1] Aoki M., 1990, ULTRASOUND OBST GYN, P95
  • [2] STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
    BLAND, JM
    ALTMAN, DG
    [J]. LANCET, 1986, 1 (8476) : 307 - 310
  • [3] CAMPBELL S, 1968, Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the British Commonwealth, V75, P568
  • [4] ULTRASONIC MEASUREMENT OF FETAL ABDOMEN CIRCUMFERENCE IN ESTIMATION OF FETAL WEIGHT
    CAMPBELL, S
    WILKIN, D
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 1975, 82 (09): : 689 - 697
  • [5] Chien P. F. W., 1996, Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Abingdon), V16, P224, DOI 10.3109/01443619609020708
  • [6] THE USE OF ULTRASOUND IN THE ASSESSMENT OF NORMAL FETAL GROWTH - A REVIEW
    DETER, RL
    HARRIST, RB
    HADLOCK, FP
    CARPENTER, RJ
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ULTRASOUND, 1981, 9 (09) : 481 - 493
  • [7] DUNN G, 1995, CLIN BIOSTATISTICS I, P35
  • [8] CERTAIN DATES MAY NOT PROVIDE A RELIABLE ESTIMATE OF GESTATIONAL-AGE
    GEIRSSON, RT
    BUSBYEARLE, RMC
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 1991, 98 (01): : 108 - 109
  • [9] ESTIMATION OF FETAL WEIGHT WITH THE USE OF HEAD, BODY, AND FEMUR MEASUREMENTS - A PROSPECTIVE-STUDY
    HADLOCK, FP
    HARRIST, RB
    SHARMAN, RS
    DETER, RL
    PARK, SK
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1985, 151 (03) : 333 - 337
  • [10] EVALUATION OF 3 METHODS FOR ESTIMATING FETAL WEIGHT
    HILL, LM
    BRECKLE, R
    WOLFGRAM, KR
    OBRIEN, PC
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ULTRASOUND, 1986, 14 (03) : 171 - 178