Ultrasonographic estimation of fetal weight in the clinically macrosomic fetus

Hirata, Greigh I.; Medearis, Arnold L.; Horenstein, Janet; Bear, Moraye B.; Platt, Lawrence D.

doi:10.1016/0002-9378(90)90857-4

Cited by 65 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Among the factors that have been studied are the amount of amniotic fluid [1][2][3], maternal weight [1,4], fetal size and gestational age [1,5,6], mode of estimation [7][8][9] and the presence of gestational diabetes mellitus [10]. All these factors focus on the maternal and fetal component in the accuracy of EFW.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Ob/Gyn Residents’ Fatigue and Training Level on the Accuracy of Fetal Weight Estimation

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To determine the effect of Ob/Gyn residents’ fatigue and training level on the accuracy of their clinical and ultrasonographical estimation of fetal weight (EFW). Methods: In this study, clinical and ultrasonographical EFWs were performed by various residents. Actual birth weight, gravidity, parity, gestational age, body mass index, presence or absence of diabetes and hypertensive diseases, presentation and amniotic fluid index were recorded. All EFWs were divided into 3 groups according to the hour they were performed. All residents were divided into 4 groups according to their training level. The accuracy of EFW as compared with actual birth weight was then analyzed according to the shift and to the residents’ seniority by using the ANOVA test. Multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate the factors that significantly and independently affected the weight evaluation. Results: Statistically significant differences were found between the clinical EFW and the birth weight among the working shifts for birth weights of 2,500 g and more (p = 0.032 and p = 0.035). For clinical EFW, night shifts were the most inaccurate (9.27, 8.05 and 9.78% of error for day, evening and night shift, respectively; p = 0.03). The accuracy of ultrasonographical EFW was not affected by the residents’ fatigue level. The residents’ training level did not alter the accuracy of either clinical or sonographical EFW. The accuracy of clinical EFW was affected independently by the work shift (p = 0.01), whereas no factor was found to independently effect the accuracy of ultrasonographic EFW. Conclusions: Ob/Gyn residents’ fatigue affects the accuracy of clinical but not ultrasonographical EFWs. Residents’ training level does not alter either the clinical or sonographical EFW.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Ob/Gyn Residents’ Fatigue and Training Level on the Accuracy of Fetal Weight Estimation

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our model performed better than Hadlock's in all FW classes except in the higher FW class ( 1 3,500 g). In macrosomic fetuses (FW 1 4,000 g), Hadlock's equation performed better than ours (6.5 vs. 7.4%) and also better than the Hirata et al [18] equation. Moreover, our model still performed better than the one obtained by Scott et al [19] (12.1-24%).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 65%

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

“…No single formula has yet been derived that can provide reliable results for all pregnancies, and most formulas are inaccurate when applied to particularly small or large fetuses. Therefore, specific formulas for var ious groups have been derived: term fetuses [7,8], smallfor-gcstational age fetuses [9][10][11], clinically macrosomic fetuses [12], and diabetic pregnancies [13]. Most formulas that are universally applicable have been developed in studies in which only very few, if any, extremely prema ture infants were included, and the few formulas derived specifically for these infants are generally based on only small numbers of cases.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Accurate Method for Sonographic Estimation of the Weight of Very Preterm Fetuses

Mielke

Pietsch-Breitfeld²,

Regele³

et al. 1997

Gynecol Obstet Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was undertaken to test the accuracy of formulas we recently developed for the sonographic estimation of the weight of very preterm fetuses. The formulas were used to determine estimated weights from prenatal sonographic data for 62 premature infants born at 23–29 weeks of gestation, weight < 1,400 g. The mean absolute deviation of the actual birth weight from the estimated weight was 75.8 ± (SD) 68.5 g, the mean percent deviation +0.60% and the absolute mean percent deviation 8.1 ± (SD) 5.6%; 90.3% of the birth weights lay within 15% of the estimated weight. The model described represents an accurate method for prenatal estimation of the weight of very preterm fetuses.

show abstract

Ultrasonographic estimation of fetal weight in the clinically macrosomic fetus

Cited by 65 publications

References 13 publications

Effect of Ob/Gyn Residents’ Fatigue and Training Level on the Accuracy of Fetal Weight Estimation

Effect of Ob/Gyn Residents’ Fatigue and Training Level on the Accuracy of Fetal Weight Estimation

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

An Accurate Method for Sonographic Estimation of the Weight of Very Preterm Fetuses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About