Sonographic fetal weight estimation - is there more to it than just fetal measurements?

Barel, Oshri; Maymon, Ron; Vaknin, Zvi; Tovbin, Josef; Smorgick, Noam

doi:10.1002/pd.4250

Cited by 36 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A number of maternal and fetal factors significantly influence the weight. This is likely to be as a result of the more complicated changes of the amniotic fluid and fetus weight in twin pregnancies compared to those in singleton pregnancies (14,15). However, there were no associations between the maternal weights and maternal serum markers in twin pregnancies in the majority of gestational weeks according to the present data.…”

Section: ------------------------------------------------------------contrasting

confidence: 47%

Second trimester maternal serum triple screening marker levels in normal twin and singleton pregnancies

Ren

Zhou

et al. 2016

Biomedical Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the serum levels of α-fetoprotein (AFP), free-β-human chorionic gonadotropin (free-β-hCG) and unconjugated estriol (uE 3 ) in second trimester maternal serum and comparative analysis of serum markers levels in normal twin and singleton pregnancies, and to evaluate the feasible methods for the screening performances of triple markers in twin pregnancy. The levels of maternal serum markers were measured by magnetic microparticle chemiluminescence immunoassay in the second trimester. TCSoft was used for calculating the risk of Down's syndrome (DS). The marker levels were compared between the twin and singleton pregnancies, along with gestational age, and the weight or age of the pregnant women. The concentrations of the maternal serum markers were higher on average in twin compared to in singleton pregnancies in the second trimester of the gestation. The levels of AFP were 2-fold higher in twin compared to those in singleton pregnancies in weeks 16, 17 and total gestational weeks. For free-β-hCG, the levels were higher in 15 and 18 gestational weeks. However, significant differences were found in all the gestational weeks for uE 3 . There was no correlation between the levels of markers and weight or age in the twin pregnancies. The serum marker levels of AFP, free-β-hCG and uE 3 in normal twins were not all 2-fold higher compared to singleton pregnancies. The current singleton gestational age-specific model for DS screening requires further correction so that it is feasible for screening in twin pregnancies.

show abstract

Section: ------------------------------------------------------------contrasting

confidence: 47%

Second trimester maternal serum triple screening marker levels in normal twin and singleton pregnancies

Ren

Zhou

et al. 2016

Biomedical Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In particular, the significant difference (p<0.05) we found between mean fetal weight among grandparas and primiparas seems to support the opinion of previous investigators who had reported significant differences in fetal weight among different parity groups. 37,38 We could not establish the cause of such differences in this study but some researchers had earlier attributed them to maternal factors such as increase in age, gait, weight and parity. 37,38 Limitations A major limitation of this study may be the localized nature of the sample studied.…”

Section: Figure 4: Bland and Altman Plots Of Differences Between Estimentioning

confidence: 83%

“…37,38 We could not establish the cause of such differences in this study but some researchers had earlier attributed them to maternal factors such as increase in age, gait, weight and parity. 37,38 Limitations A major limitation of this study may be the localized nature of the sample studied. The sample was drawn from a population of antenatal clinic attendees in just one tertiary hospital in Lagos, Nigeria (a country with an estimated 170 million people), therefore, the ability to generalize our results is obviously limited.…”

Section: Figure 4: Bland and Altman Plots Of Differences Between Estimentioning

confidence: 83%

Correlation of ultrasonographic estimated fetal weight with actual birth weight in a tertiary hospital in Lagos, Nigeria.

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Sonographic fetal weight estimation is an important component of antenatal care. Aim: To sonographically estimate fetal weight at term and to compare estimated with actual birth weights to determine the validity of estimated fetal weights. Subjects and methods: In the prospective study, a convenience sample of 282 women was recruited. Ethical approval and informed consent of patients were obtained. An experienced sonographer estimated fetal weights by measuring BPD, HC, AC and FL using a scanner with Hadlock 3 weight estimation model. Actual birth weights were measured with a Crown weighing scale by a midwife. Data was analyzed with SPSS software version 17.0 while descriptive and inferential statistics were used to interpret results. Results were tested at error level set at p≤ 0.05. Results: Mean estimated and actual birth weights were 3378±40g and 3393±60g respectively. Difference between the two means was not significant. Eleven percent of fetuses were sonographically estimated to be microsomic while 14.5% were microsomic at birth; 12.1% were sonographically estimated to be macrosomic but 15.2% were macrosomic at birth. Most macrosomic fetuses were delivered through cesarean section(CS) and fetal weights increased with maternal age and parity. Conclusion: Sonographically estimated fetal weight using Hadlock 3 weight estimation model without validation correlated positively with actual birth weight in a Nigerian population.

show abstract

“…However, several studies have demonstrated no apparent effect of maternal BMI on the accuracy of SEFW [16,17]. Another potential reason for the difference in systematic error between pregnancies may be the difference in amniotic fluid volume, although the impact of amniotic fluid volume on SEFW is supported only by some studies [18] but not others [19]. The role of parity is ruled out by the present study by the lack of a significant difference in systematic error between nulliparas and multiparas (table 2).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Deviation of Sonographic Estimated Fetal Weight from Actual Birth Weight in Two Consecutive Pregnancies of the Same Parturients

Aviram

Tenenbaum-Gavish

et al. 2014

Fetal Diagn Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To determine whether maternal features affect the accuracy of sonographic estimated fetal weight (SEFW) by evaluating the consistency of the systematic error of SEFW with regards to the birth weight (BW) in two consecutive pregnancies of the same gravida. Methods: The cohort included women with SEFW within 1 week of delivery (32-42 weeks' gestation) in two consecutive singleton pregnancies from 2007 to 2012. The systematic error was calculated as (SEFW - BW)/BW × 100 and expressed as a percentage of the BW. Results: A total of 636 pregnancies (318 gravidas) were eligible for analysis. The BW and SEFW were correlated in both first examined (r = 0.873, p < 0.001) and consecutive (r = 0.843, p < 0.001) pregnancies. There was a significant difference in mean systematic error between first examined and consecutive pregnancies (3.13 ± 8.95 vs. 0.34 ± 8.75%, p < 0.001), with a very weak correlation between the two (r = 0.135, p = 0.16). Nulliparity or multiparity at the first examined pregnancy was not found to be a significant factor, and in both groups the error was higher in the first examined pregnancy. There were no significant differences between parturients with a minor (10% and below) or major (>10%) difference in the systematic error between the two pregnancies. Conclusion: The systematic error between the SEFW and BW in two consecutive pregnancies is inconsistent, suggesting that it is unaffected by maternal biometric features.

show abstract

Sonographic fetal weight estimation - is there more to it than just fetal measurements?

Abstract: Many maternal and fetal factors significantly influence the SFWE; nevertheless, most errors are probably due to inherent problems in SFWE formulas.

Cited by 36 publications

References 25 publications

Second trimester maternal serum triple screening marker levels in normal twin and singleton pregnancies

Second trimester maternal serum triple screening marker levels in normal twin and singleton pregnancies

Correlation of ultrasonographic estimated fetal weight with actual birth weight in a tertiary hospital in Lagos, Nigeria.

Deviation of Sonographic Estimated Fetal Weight from Actual Birth Weight in Two Consecutive Pregnancies of the Same Parturients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About