Validity of ultrasound estimation of fetal weight

被引:83
|
作者
Chien, PFW [1 ]
Owen, P
Khan, KS
机构
[1] Univ Dundee, Ninewells Hosp & Med Sch, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Dundee DD1 9SY, Tayside, Scotland
[2] Stobhill Gen Hosp, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Glasgow G21 3UW, Lanark, Scotland
[3] Univ Birmingham, Div Reprod & Child Hlth, Birmingham, W Midlands, England
来源
OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY | 2000年 / 95卷 / 06期
关键词
D O I
10.1016/S0029-7844(00)00828-0
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Objective: To assess the validity of ultrasound estimation of fetal weight at term. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study whereby all ultrasonic biometric measurements were done by a single observer. Fifty pregnant women at term had ultrasonic measurement of various fetal biometric parameters performed within a week of delivery. Fetal weight was estimated by the use of four reported methods (Aoki, Campbell, Shepard, and Hadlock formulas). We compared estimated weight with the birth weight after the estimated fetal weight was adjusted by adding 25 g for each day between the ultrasound measurements and delivery. Results: The adjusted estimated fetal weight obtained from all four formulas tended to be lower than measured birth weight. The smallest mean difference was obtained with the Shepard and Aoki formulas (51.4 g and 60.5 g, respectively), whereas the Campbell and Hadlock formulas produced larger mean differences (141.8 g and 190.7 g, respectively). The Aoki formula generated the smallest range between the limits of agreement (-324.2 to 445.2 g) whereas the Campbell formula produced the largest range (-286.5 to 570.1 g). The range between the limits of agreement generated with the Shepard and Hadlock formulas were intermediate between those produced by the Aoki and Campbell formulas. The intraclass correlation coefficients generated with the Aoki and Shepard formulas were identical (0.90). The intraclass correlation coefficients obtained with the Hadlock (0.84) and Campbell formulas (0.85) were lower. Conclusion: The validity of ultrasonic estimation of fetal weight at term with all four formulas was high. (Obstet Gynecol 2000;95:856-60. (C) 2000 by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists).
引用
收藏
页码:856 / 860
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] VALIDITY AND RANKING OF FETAL WEIGHT ESTIMATION BY ULTRASOUND IN BREECH PRESENTATIONS
    KIRSCHBAUM, M
    BODEKER, RH
    MUNSTEDT, K
    KUNZEL, W
    GEBURTSHILFE UND FRAUENHEILKUNDE, 1992, 52 (05) : 264 - 269
  • [2] FETAL WEIGHT ESTIMATION BY ULTRASOUND
    KRATOCHWIL, A
    BERNASCHEK, G
    WIENER KLINISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT, 1981, 93 (06) : 183 - 186
  • [3] ESTIMATION OF FETAL WEIGHT BY ULTRASOUND
    GREISEN, G
    HORMONE RESEARCH, 1992, 38 (5-6) : 208 - 210
  • [4] ESTIMATION OF FETAL WEIGHT BY ULTRASOUND
    SCHILLINGER, H
    MULLER, R
    KRETZSCHMAR, M
    WODE, J
    GEBURTSHILFE UND FRAUENHEILKUNDE, 1975, 35 (11) : 858 - 865
  • [5] ESTIMATION OF FETAL WEIGHT BY ULTRASOUND
    JORDAAN, HVF
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ULTRASOUND, 1983, 11 (02) : 59 - 66
  • [6] Ultrasound Fetal Weight Estimation in Diabetic Pregnancies
    Pretscher, Jutta
    Kehl, Sven
    Stumpfe, Florian M.
    Mayr, Andreas
    Schmid, Matthias
    Schild, Ralf L.
    Beckmann, Matthias W.
    Faschingbauer, Florian
    JOURNAL OF ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE, 2020, 39 (02) : 341 - 350
  • [7] CLINICAL VERSUS ULTRASOUND ESTIMATION OF FETAL WEIGHT
    RAMAN, S
    URQUHART, R
    YUSOF, M
    AUSTRALIAN & NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY, 1992, 32 (03): : 196 - 199
  • [8] A systematic review of the ultrasound estimation of fetal weight
    Dudley, NJ
    ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2005, 25 (01) : 80 - 89
  • [9] INFLUENCE OF FETAL FAT ON THE ULTRASOUND ESTIMATION OF FETAL WEIGHT IN DIABETIC MOTHERS
    BERNSTEIN, IM
    CATALANO, PM
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1992, 79 (04): : 561 - 563
  • [10] Ultrasound estimation of fetal weight: A formula for a Pakistani population
    Munim, Shama
    Figueras, Francesc
    Shah, Saima Malik
    Khan, Farah
    Gardosi, Jason
    JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY RESEARCH, 2010, 36 (03) : 479 - 483