We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Ultrasonic prediction of term birth weight in Hispanic women. Accuracy in an outpatient clinic.
Journal of Reproductive Medicine 2003 January
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the accuracy of ultrasonic fetal biometric algorithms for estimating term fetal weight.
STUDY DESIGN: Ultrasonographic fetal biometric assessments were made in 74 Hispanic women who delivered at 37-42 weeks of gestation. Measurements were taken of the fetal biparietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference and femur length. Twenty-seven standard fetal biometric algorithms were assessed for their accuracy in predicting fetal weight. Results were compared to those obtained by merely guessing the mean term birth weight in each case.
RESULTS: The correlation between ultrasonically predicted and actual birth weights ranged from 0.52 to 0.79. The different ultrasonic algorithms estimated fetal weight to within +/- 8.6-15.0% (+/- 295-520 g) of actual birth weight as compared with +/- 13.6% (+/- 449 g) for guessing the mean birth weight in each case (mean +/- SD). The mean absolute prediction errors for 17 of the ultrasonic equations (63%) were superior to those obtained by guessing the mean birth weight by 3.2-5.0% (96-154 g) (P < .05). Fourteen algorithms (52%) were more accurate for predicting fetal weight to within +/- 15%, and 20 algorithms (74%) were more accurate for predicting fetal weight to within +/- 10% of actual birth weight than simply guessing the mean birth weight (P < .05). Ten ultrasonic equations (37%) showed significant utility for predicting fetal weight > 4,000 g (likelihood ratio > 5.0).
CONCLUSION: Term fetal weight predictions using the majority of sonographic fetal biometric equations are more accurate, by up to 154 g and 5%, than simply guessing the population-specific mean birth weight.
STUDY DESIGN: Ultrasonographic fetal biometric assessments were made in 74 Hispanic women who delivered at 37-42 weeks of gestation. Measurements were taken of the fetal biparietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference and femur length. Twenty-seven standard fetal biometric algorithms were assessed for their accuracy in predicting fetal weight. Results were compared to those obtained by merely guessing the mean term birth weight in each case.
RESULTS: The correlation between ultrasonically predicted and actual birth weights ranged from 0.52 to 0.79. The different ultrasonic algorithms estimated fetal weight to within +/- 8.6-15.0% (+/- 295-520 g) of actual birth weight as compared with +/- 13.6% (+/- 449 g) for guessing the mean birth weight in each case (mean +/- SD). The mean absolute prediction errors for 17 of the ultrasonic equations (63%) were superior to those obtained by guessing the mean birth weight by 3.2-5.0% (96-154 g) (P < .05). Fourteen algorithms (52%) were more accurate for predicting fetal weight to within +/- 15%, and 20 algorithms (74%) were more accurate for predicting fetal weight to within +/- 10% of actual birth weight than simply guessing the mean birth weight (P < .05). Ten ultrasonic equations (37%) showed significant utility for predicting fetal weight > 4,000 g (likelihood ratio > 5.0).
CONCLUSION: Term fetal weight predictions using the majority of sonographic fetal biometric equations are more accurate, by up to 154 g and 5%, than simply guessing the population-specific mean birth weight.
Full text links
Trending Papers
A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure.Heart International 2023
Potential Mechanisms of the Protective Effects of the Cardiometabolic Drugs Type-2 Sodium-Glucose Transporter Inhibitors and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Heart Failure.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 Februrary 21
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app