Prediction of large for gestational age by various sonographic fetal weight estimation formulas-which should we use?

被引:21
|
作者
Aviram, A. [1 ,2 ]
Yogev, Y. [1 ,2 ]
Ashwal, E. [1 ,2 ]
Hiersch, L. [1 ,2 ]
Hadar, E. [2 ,3 ]
Gabbay-Benziv, R. [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Lis Matern & Womens Hosp, Tel Aviv Sourasky Med Ctr, Tel Aviv, Israel
[2] Tel Aviv Univ, Sackler Fac Med, Tel Aviv, Israel
[3] Helen Schneider Hosp Women, Rabin Med Ctr, Petah Tiqwa, Israel
关键词
FEMUR LENGTH; HEAD MEASUREMENTS; BIRTH-WEIGHT; MACROSOMIA; ULTRASOUND; CHARTS; MODEL; SIZE; PREGNANCIES; EQUATIONS;
D O I
10.1038/jp.2017.5
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVE: As sonographic estimation of fetal weight (EFW) carries substantial impact, especially in large-for-gestational-age (LGA) neonates, we aimed to compare the accuracy of various formulas for prediction of LGA neonates. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of singleton gestations at term, with EFW up to 7 days before delivery (2007 to 2014). Small-for-gestational-age neonates were excluded. LGA prediction for various formulas was evaluated by: (i) measures of performance (sensitivity, specificity, etc.); (ii) systematic and random errors (SE and RE) and the proportion of estimates (POEs) exceeding 10% of actual birth weight. Best performing formula was defined as the one with the lowest Euclidean distance [= square root of (SE2+RE2)]. RESULTS: Out of 62 102 deliveries, 7996 met inclusion criteria, of which 1618 neonates were LGA (22%). There was a considerable variation in sensitivity (74.6 +/- 16.3%, 23.5% to 99%), specificity (86.3 +/- 10.6%, 51.7% to 99.6%), positive predictive value (64.9 +/- 12.4%, 35.6% to 93.8%), positive likelihood ratio (LR; 9.3 +/- 10.9, 2.1 to 54.2) and negative LR (0.3 +/- 0.16, 0.02 to 0.8), a mild variation in the negative predictive value (92.9 +/- 3.7%, 82.3% to 99.5%) and a minimal variation in the area under the curve (94.3%, 93.0 to 95.1; mean +/- s.d., range for all). Absolute SE was higher for the LGA group in 11/20 formulas (55%). The RE and POE were lower in 19/20 (95%) and 14/20 (70%) for the LGA neonates, respectively. CONCLUSION: There is a wide variation in EFW formulas performance for detecting LGA. Hadlock's formula (1985) combining abdominal circumference, femur length and biparietal diameter ranked highest.
引用
收藏
页码:513 / 517
页数:5
相关论文
共 19 条
  • [1] Prediction of large for gestational age by various sonographic fetal weight estimation formulas—which should we use?
    A Aviram
    Y Yogev
    E Ashwal
    L Hiersch
    E Hadar
    R Gabbay-Benziv
    Journal of Perinatology, 2017, 37 : 513 - 517
  • [2] Predictions of large for gestational age by various sonographic fetal weight estimation formulas-how accurate are we?
    Aviram, Amir
    Gabbay-Benziv, Rinat
    Hiersch, Liran
    Ashwal, Eran
    Hadar, Eran
    Wiznitzer, Arnon
    Yogev, Yariv
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2016, 214 (01) : S362 - S362
  • [3] Prediction of Small for Gestational Age: Accuracy of Different Sonographic Fetal Weight Estimation Formulas
    Gabbay-Benziv, Rinat
    Aviram, Amir
    Bardin, Ron
    Ashwal, Eran
    Melamed, Nir
    Hiersch, Liran
    Wiznitzer, Arnon
    Yogev, Yariv
    Hadar, Eran
    FETAL DIAGNOSIS AND THERAPY, 2016, 40 (03) : 205 - 213
  • [4] Sonographic Fetal Weight Estimation Which Model Should Be Used?
    Melamed, Nir
    Yogev, Yariv
    Meizner, Israel
    Mashiach, Reuven
    Bardin, Ron
    Ben-Haroush, Avi
    JOURNAL OF ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE, 2009, 28 (05) : 617 - 629
  • [5] Small for gestational age for the prediction of stillbirth: which growth chart should we use?
    Hiersch, Liran
    Lipworth, Hayley
    Kingdom, John
    Barrett, Jon
    Melamed, Nir
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2020, 222 (01) : S343 - S343
  • [6] ULTRASONIC ESTIMATION OF FETAL WEIGHT - USE OF TARGETED FORMULAS IN SMALL-FOR-GESTATIONAL-AGE FETUSES
    ROBSON, SC
    GALLIVAN, S
    WALKINSHAW, SA
    VAUGHAN, J
    RODECK, CH
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1993, 82 (03): : 359 - 364
  • [7] Ultrasonographic weight estimation in large for gestational age fetuses: A comparison of 17 sonographic formulas and four models algorithms
    Rosati, Paolo
    Arduini, Maurizio
    Giri, Carla
    Guariglia, Lorenzo
    JOURNAL OF MATERNAL-FETAL & NEONATAL MEDICINE, 2010, 23 (07): : 675 - 680
  • [8] Evaluation of Fetal Weight Estimation Formulas in Assessing Small-for-Gestational-Age Fetuses
    Barel, O.
    Maymon, R.
    Elovits, M.
    Smorgick, N.
    Tovbin, J.
    Vaknin, Z.
    ULTRASCHALL IN DER MEDIZIN, 2016, 37 (03): : 283 - 289
  • [9] ESTIMATION OF BIRTH-WEIGHT BY USE OF ULTRASONOGRAPHIC FORMULAS TARGETED TO LARGE-FOR-GESTATIONAL-AGE, APPROPRIATE-FOR-GESTATIONAL-AGE, AND SMALL-FOR-GESTATIONAL-AGE FETUSES
    SABBAGHA, RE
    MINOGUE, J
    TAMURA, RK
    HUNGERFORD, SA
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1989, 160 (04) : 854 - 862
  • [10] To know or not to know: Effect of third-trimester sonographic fetal weight estimation on outcomes of large-for-gestational age neonates
    Zeevi, Gil
    Regev, Noam
    Key-Segal, Chen
    Romano, Asaf
    Houri, Ohad
    Bercovich, Or
    Hadar, Eran
    Berezowsky, Alexandra
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS, 2024, 166 (03) : 1108 - 1113