Prediction of fetal weight by ultrasound: the contribution of additional examiners

Gull, I.; Fait, Gideon; Har‐Toov, J.; Kupferminc, M.; Lessing, Joseph B.; Jaffa, Ariel J.; Wolman, Igal

doi:10.1046/j.1469-0705.2002.00742.x

Cited by 31 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Very few previous studies have dealt with the influence of interexaminer variability on fetal weight estimation. The interexaminer variability observed in this study (about 4%) was similar to that observed by Chang et al [20] and Gull et al [21] . However, in previous studies, interexaminer variability was only estimated using a single equation.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Estimation of Fetal Weight: Accuracy of Regression Models versus Accuracy of Ultrasound Data

Pineau¹,

Grangé

Kapitaniak

et al. 2008

Fetal Diagn Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To determine the respective importance of equation accuracy and variability in interexaminer measurements in estimation of fetal weight (EFW). Methods: The study included 3 samples from three different French maternity hospitals. Sample 1 (6,508 fetuses) was used to compute a new linear regression model estimating fetal weight (FW) from ultrasound measurements. Sample 2, with 705 fetuses, was used to compare the accuracy of the new equation with Hadlock’s equation. Sample 3 (1,461 fetuses) was used to assess – from our equation and from Hadlock’s – the estimation errors due to the variability of ultrasound measurements recorded by 11 distinct examiners. Accuracy was determined by the signed percent difference (%Diff). Statistical analysis included the F test for correlated variances and comparisons of correlated variances. Results: The random error of our model is 6.8%, significantly lower (p < 0.01) than Hadlock’s which is around 7.4% (8.9% for low FW and 7.4% for high FW). The variability of ultrasound measurements among the different examiners in sample 3 generated a significant variation (p < 0.01) in the random error, ranging from 6.7 to 12.5%. This significant variation was also observed using Hadlock’s equation for the same sample (from 7.2 to 12%). Conclusion: The accuracy of EFW depends much more on the quality of ultrasound measurements than on the choice of equation. Nevertheless, optimizing the accuracy of EFW (about 6.7–6.8%) imperatively requires standardized data collecting.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Estimation of Fetal Weight: Accuracy of Regression Models versus Accuracy of Ultrasound Data

Pineau¹,

Grangé

Kapitaniak

et al. 2008

Fetal Diagn Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several studies suggested that multiple measurements by multiple examiners and averaging the results decrease the random error. This was confirmed by the only study included in our review that applied measurement averaging to reduce errors due to observer differences [29]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 65%

“…There was only one study that investigated the effect of averaging results on FWE [29]. The authors found that especially fetal abdominal circumference (AC) is prone to intra- and interobserver error but can be reduced by averaging results.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Factors Influencing the Accuracy of Fetal Weight Estimation with a Focus on Preterm Birth at the Limit of Viability: A Systematic Literature Review

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Fetal weight estimation (FWE) is an important factor for clinical management decisions, especially in imminent preterm birth at the limit of viability between 23^0/7 and 26^0/7 weeks of gestation. It is crucial to detect and eliminate factors that have a negative impact on the accuracy of FWE. Data Sources: In this systematic literature review, we investigated 14 factors that may influence the accuracy of FWE, in particular in preterm neonates born at the limit of viability. Results: We found that gestational age, maternal body mass index, amniotic fluid index and ruptured membranes, presentation of the fetus, location of the placenta and the presence of multiple fetuses do not seem to have an impact on FWE accuracy. The influence of the examiner's grade of experience and that of fetal gender were discussed controversially. Fetal weight, time interval between estimation and delivery and the use of different formulas seem to have an evident effect on FWE accuracy. No results were obtained on the impact of active labor. Discussion: This review reveals that only few studies investigated factors possibly influencing the accuracy of FWE in preterm neonates at the limit of viability. Further research in this specific age group on potential confounding factors is needed.

show abstract

“…Gull et al [7] found that multiple ultrasound examiners reduce the proportion of major discrepancies ( 1 10% of the actual birth weight). However, we found that multiple examiners of different working experience only slightly improve the error rate (in a nonsignificant fashion), and that there is no significant change in the proportion of major discrepancies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Estimation of Fetal Weight: Is Accuracy Acquired with Professional Experience?

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study was conducted in order to determine whether experience and type of obstetrical profession improves the accuracy in the clinical estimation of fetal weight among obstetricians and midwives in the delivery room. Methods: Four groups of professionals in the delivery room clinically estimated the fetal weight in 236 parturients in active labor. Obstetric parameters such as gravidity, parity, gestational age, body mass index, amniotomy, station and cervical dilatation were recorded. Fetal weight estimations were compared with the actual birth weight after delivery. Results: The mean error rate of fetal weight estimation by attending obstetricians, residents, experienced and junior midwives was 7.9 ± 8.8, 8.0 ± 8.4, 7.8 ± 6.3 and 8.5 ± 6.8%, respectively. Error rates of the 4 groups of examiners were similar, although it was increased in all subgroups when estimating birth weights <2,500 and >4,000 g. Major discrepancies of fetal weight estimation (>10% of the actual fetal birth weight) occurred in 27.2, 28.9, 31.9 and 34.7% by attending obstetricians, residents, experienced and junior midwives, respectively. Conclusions: We found no additional value for experience and type of obstetrical training in the accuracy of clinical fetal weight estimation.

show abstract

Prediction of fetal weight by ultrasound: the contribution of additional examiners

Abstract: Measurements by multiple examiners changes only slightly the average number of discrepancies between estimated and actual fetal weights. However, the reduction in major (> 10%) discrepancies is statistically and clinically significant.

Cited by 31 publications

References 10 publications

Estimation of Fetal Weight: Accuracy of Regression Models versus Accuracy of Ultrasound Data

Estimation of Fetal Weight: Accuracy of Regression Models versus Accuracy of Ultrasound Data

Factors Influencing the Accuracy of Fetal Weight Estimation with a Focus on Preterm Birth at the Limit of Viability: A Systematic Literature Review

Clinical Estimation of Fetal Weight: Is Accuracy Acquired with Professional Experience?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About