Ultrasound Fetal Weight Estimation: How Accurate Are We Now Under Emergency Conditions?

Dimassi, Kaouther; Douik, F.; Ajroudi, Mariem; Triki, A.; Gara, Mohamed Faouzi

doi:10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2015.05.020

Cited by 18 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, Ben-Aroya et al [21] demonstrated that seniority levels of residency did not affect the accuracy of the clinical estimation, but that residents' fatigue did. Our findings are in concordance with others' [3,8,22] , implying that there is probably no additional value for obstetrics experience to the ability to perform EFW during the active stage of labor. Since the fetal head might be engaged deep in the maternal pelvis during the active stage of labor and would be an obstacle for the measurements of the fetal BPD and HC, we used in the current study 7 different formulas for the ultrasonographic EFW.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison between Three Methods of Fetal Weight Estimation during the Active Stage of Labor Performed by Residents: A Prospective Cohort Study

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare the accuracy of ultrasonographic, calculated, and clinical methods for the estimation of fetal weight (EFW) performed during active labor by residents. Methods: Parturients in active labor underwent prospectively EFW by 3 methods: ultrasonographic, clinical, and calculated (extrapolating EFW from a previous scan). Three different blinded residents evaluated each woman. Background variables were examined for their effect on the accuracy of each method. Comparison of the methods for the detection of macrosomia and small for gestational age (SGA) was also performed. Results: Among the 405 women recruited, the rates of accuracy of ultrasonographic, clinical, and calculated EFW (within ±10%) was 72.5, 74.3, and 71.1%, respectively. The correlation coefficient between the methods and actual birth weight (ABW) were 0.702-0.611 (using 7 Hadlock formulas), 0.649, and 0.622, respectively (all p < 0.001). By logistic regression, epidural analgesia was associated with higher and second stage of labor with lower accuracy of ultrasonographic EFW. For the detection of macrosomia, clinical (p < 0.001) and calculated EFWs (p = 0.035) were superior to ultrasonographic EFW. For the detection of SGA, ultrasonographic EFW was superior to calculated (p < 0.001) and clinical (p < 0.001) EFWs. Conclusion: All 3 methods performed by residents during labor correlated well with ABW. Clinical and calculated EFWs were superior for macrosomia detection, whereas ultrasonographic EFW was superior for SGA detection.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Notably, EFW at the extremes of weight growth poses a problem of accuracy [4,[22][23][24] . We found that the clinical EFW method had the best ability to detect macrosomia, followed by the calculated method.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison between Three Methods of Fetal Weight Estimation during the Active Stage of Labor Performed by Residents: A Prospective Cohort Study

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, in a review of the literature in 2014, Filkaszova et al [5] showed that the sensitivity for detection of ultrasound averaged 64% for EFW and 83% for the EFWAC [5]. For Dimassi [7] who conducted a study on a cohort of 299 patients to evaluate the performance of the EFW conducted by specialty in internal work room, the day of delivery, after 37 weeks, found sensitivity of 38% for EFW [7]. Noumi [15] in a 2004 study, comparing the performance of estimating the clinical and sonographic fetal weight carried by specialty's resident during labor in a cohort of 199 patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For this purpose, several methods have been studied such as fetal weight estimation with various formulas, measurement of waist circumference on ultrasound measurement of uterine height with the formula of Johnson, clinical and sonographic estimations whose performances are contradictory in studies [4][5][6]. Several recent studies have demonstrated the performance of an ultrasound to estimate fetal weight in the delivery room [7] at term [8][9][10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Screening for Macrosomia at Term: Performances of Ultrasonographic Estimation of the Fetal Weight and the Use of the Uterine Height

Sellier¹

2017

OGIJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The aim of our study was to assess the performance for the detection of macrosomia at term of estimating fetal weight corrected by the growth effect (EFWc) measured by ultrasound, EFWC via measuring uterine height (UH), the waist circumference and higher uterine height threshold or equal to 37. Methods:It is a retrospective study of 233 patients whose newborn macrosomes were sampled. The estimated fetal weight (EFW) ultrasound was performed during the 41th week of amenorrhea, as the EFW by measuring waist circumference with the Warsof 's formula and EFW by measuring the uterine height according to the kayem's formula. These 3 estimates were corrected taking into account the growth effect. Results:The proportion of estimates with a margin of error of less than 10% was 61.3%, 50% and 68.4% respectively for the EFWc EFWUHc and EFWACc. ROC curves of the EFWc EFWUHc and EFWACc find the Aires under the curve (AUC) to 0.859, 0.783 and 0.856. The EFWc and EFWACc are significantly higher than for term screening for macrosomia compared to EFWUHc (p <0.001 and p <0.001 respectively). Conclusion:Measuring the EFWc and EFWACc are reliable and simple means for screening for macrosomia term, but will be improved.

show abstract

“…In conclusion, the EFWs calculated by residents were as accurate as those calculated by experienced sonographers. Nevertheless, predictive performance remains limited, with low sensitivity in the diagnosis of macrosomia (9).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of Ultrasound Estimation of Fetal Weight at Three Teaching Hospitals in Addis Ababa

Ibrahim¹,

Weldetensaye²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract BackgroundUltrasound examination and measurement of fetal weight have become an integral part of modern obstetric care. Knowing the accuracy of the ultrasound estimation of fetal weight (EFW) and what factors affect it helps make a more informed decision. Fetal weight estimation is thought to help predict fetal survival and make management decisions in the low birth weight group and in managing the delivery of the large baby, where complications may occur.ObjectiveTo assess the accuracy of ultrasound estimation of fetal weight.MethodsThe study design was a facility-based prospective cross-sectional study comparing sonographic EFW with actual birth weight, involving 384 women admitted to the study hospitals. And assessed 12 factors that might affect accuracy (place of delivery/scan, level of the operator, time of scan (working vs. non-working hours), fetal presentation, liquor volume, placental location, days passed between scan and delivery, time of the scan to labor (antepartum vs. intrapartum), fetal sex, maternal BMI, gestational age, and fetal weight. Data were collected using structured questionnaires, developed based on study variables and available literature, and analyzed using SPSS software.ResultThe EFW that is within 10% of the actual birth weight is 62.4%. The overall mean error of EFW was 9.1%, with an SD of ± 7.1%. Of the 12 factors assessed, it was found that the place of delivery/scan (p = 0.017) and the level of resident experience (p = 0.47) significantly affected the accuracy. When R4 was compared to R1’s OR = 4.656(95%CI, [1.111–19.506], p = 0.035) and R2’s OR = 2.112(95%CI,[1.062–4.201],p = 0.033) but not significant when compared to R3’s OR = 1.227(95%CI,[0.563–1.191],p = 0.607). A paired sample t-test was applied (P = 0.14).Conclusion and recommendationThe EFW of R4’s was significantly different from that of R1’s and R2’s, but not R3’s we recommend that all ultrasound scans whose weight estimation can affect the management plan of the patient to be done by the senior residents rather than the junior residents i.e. the R3’s and R4’s.

show abstract

Ultrasound Fetal Weight Estimation: How Accurate Are We Now Under Emergency Conditions?

Cited by 18 publications

References 20 publications

Comparison between Three Methods of Fetal Weight Estimation during the Active Stage of Labor Performed by Residents: A Prospective Cohort Study

Comparison between Three Methods of Fetal Weight Estimation during the Active Stage of Labor Performed by Residents: A Prospective Cohort Study

Screening for Macrosomia at Term: Performances of Ultrasonographic Estimation of the Fetal Weight and the Use of the Uterine Height

Accuracy of Ultrasound Estimation of Fetal Weight at Three Teaching Hospitals in Addis Ababa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About