Abdominal Circumference Alone versus Estimated Fetal Weight after 24 Weeks to Predict Small or Large for Gestational Age at Birth: A Meta-Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 34 (11) ◽  
pp. 1115-1124 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Yordan ◽  
Bradley Holbrook ◽  
Pranita Nirgudkar ◽  
Ellen Mozurkewich ◽  
Nathan Blue
Keyword(s):  
Gestational Age ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Screening Method ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Fetal Weight ◽  
Abdominal Circumference ◽  
Large For Gestational Age ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
Estimated Fetal Weight

Objective We compared the sensitivity and specificity of abdominal circumference (AC) alone versus estimated fetal weight (EFW) to predict small for gestational age (SGA) or large for gestational age (LGA) at birth. Study Design We searched the literature for studies assessing an ultrasonographic AC or EFW after 24 weeks to predict SGA or LGA at birth. Case series or studies including anomalous fetuses or multiple gestations were excluded. We computed the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of any AC or EFW cutoff analyzed by at least two studies. Results We identified 2,460 studies, of which 40 met inclusion criteria (n = 36,519). Four studies assessed AC alone to predict SGA (n = 5,119), and six assessed AC to predict LGA (n = 6,110). Sixteen assessed EFW to predict SGA (n = 13,825), and 22 evaluated EFW to predict LGA (n = 18,896). To predict SGA, AC and EFW < 10th percentile have similar ability to predict SGA. To predict LGA, AC cutoffs were comparable to all EFW cutoffs, except that AC > 35 cm had better sensitivity. Conclusion After 24 weeks, AC is comparable to EFW to predict both SGA and LGA. In settings where serial EFWs are inaccessible, a simpler screening method with AC alone may suffice.

Estimated fetal weight: Applicability to small- and large-for-gestational-age fetus

1988 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 95-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph M. Miller ◽  
Grace A. Kissling ◽  
Haywood L. Brown ◽  
Harvey A. Gabert
Keyword(s):  
Gestational Age ◽  
Fetal Weight ◽  
Large For Gestational Age ◽  
Estimated Fetal Weight

Gastroschisis: incidence and prediction of growth restriction

2015 ◽  
Vol 43 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fadi G. Mirza ◽  
Samuel T. Bauer ◽  
Anne Van der Veer ◽  
Lynn L. Simpson
Keyword(s):  
Gestational Age ◽  
Intrauterine Growth Restriction ◽  
Growth Restriction ◽  
Fetal Weight ◽  
Abdominal Circumference ◽  
Month Of Birth ◽  
Intrauterine Growth ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Tertiary Center ◽  
Estimated Fetal Weight

AbstractFetuses with gastroschisis are at increased risk of intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR). However, there is a tendency for underestimation of fetal abdominal circumference and hence fetal weight, leading to overdiagnosis of IUGR. Our objective was to evaluate the accuracy of ultrasound for the prediction of being small for gestational age (SGA) at birth in these cases.A retrospective study of prenatally diagnosed cases of gastroschisis was conducted at a tertiary center. Fetal weight was estimated using the formula of Hadlock. IUGR was defined as an estimated fetal weight ≤10th percentile for gestational age. SGA at the time of birth was defined as a birth weight ≤10th percentile for gestational age. The incidence of IUGR on last ultrasound and that of SGA at birth were calculated, and the precision of ultrasound in predicting SGA was determined.IUGR was reported on the last ultrasound prior to delivery in 9/25 cases (36%). Postnatally, 13/25 newborns (52%) were SGA. All sonographically suspected cases of IUGR based on the last ultrasound were SGA at birth. The positive predictive value of the last ultrasound in identifying SGA was 100%.At least half of the infants affected by gastroschisis were SGA at birth. Sonographic estimation of fetal weight within 1 month of birth reliably predicted SGA in infants with gastroschisis.

scholarly journals Correlation between Estimated Fetal Weight at Term by Ultrasonogram and Actual Birth Weight

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-25
Author(s):  
NR Shapla ◽  
MA Aleem ◽  
E Jesmin ◽  
H Ahmed ◽  
YS Lepe
Keyword(s):  
Birth Weight ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Gestational Age ◽  
Mode Of Delivery ◽  
Simple Random Sampling ◽  
Fetal Weight ◽  
Abdominal Circumference ◽  
Biometric Data ◽  
Age Range ◽  
Estimated Fetal Weight

The estimation of foetal birth weight is an important factor in the management of high risk pregnancies. Estimated foetal weight is calculated in the standard routine antepartum evaluation of high risk pregnancies and deliveries. This prospective observational study was done at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology in Border Guard Hospital, Peelkhana, Dhaka over a period of 6 months from January 2012 to June 2012. The present study was carried out to compare the accuracy of actual and ultrasonographic estimation of foetal weight at term. Hundred pregnant women at different gestational age from 37 weeks to 40 weeks were selected by simple random sampling. Ultrasonography was done for determination of estimated foetal weight (EFW) at term by using Hadlock method and birth weight was measured just after delivery. Data analysis was done by percentage and paired ‘t’ test. The age range of patients were 18-37 years with mean ±SD is 25.13±4.46. Among 100 study patients 33% were nuliparous and 67% were multiparous. The mean ±SD of gestational age and actual birth weight is 38.76±1.09 and 3.11±0.391 respectively. Ultrasound biometric data that includes mean ±SD biparietal diameter (BPD) in mm, abdominal circumference (AC) in mm and femur length (FL) in cm were 90.21±3.52, 327.67±20.75 and 7.45±1.43 respectively. Mean ±SD of estimated foetal weight (EFW) Kg was 2.97±0.53. Actual birth weight is correlated with the estimated foetal weight and the result was not statistically significant (P >.05). Calculation of estimated fetal weight by ultrasonography is recommended to make decision about mode of delivery, so that an obstetrician can plan early in high risk cases. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/jbcps.v32i1.21032 J Bangladesh Coll Phys Surg 2014; 32: 21-25

scholarly journals Symphysis-fundal height curve in the diagnosis of fetal growth deviations

2010 ◽  
Vol 44 (6) ◽  
pp. 1031-1038 ◽  
Author(s):  
Djacyr Magna Cabral Freire ◽  
Jose Guilherme Cecatti ◽  
Cláudio Sergio Medeiros Paiva
Keyword(s):  
Fetal Growth ◽  
Gestational Age ◽  
Small For Gestational Age ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Fetal Weight ◽  
Northeastern Brazil ◽  
Reference Curve ◽  
Ministry Of Health ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Estimated Fetal Weight

OBJECTIVE: To validate a new symphysis-fundal curve for screening fetal growth deviations and to compare its performance with the standard curve adopted by the Brazilian Ministry of Health. METHODS: Observational study including a total of 753 low-risk pregnant women with gestational age above 27 weeks between March to October 2006 in the city of João Pessoa, Northeastern Brazil. Symphisys-fundal was measured using a standard technique recommended by the Brazilian Ministry of Health. Estimated fetal weight assessed through ultrasound using the Brazilian fetal weight chart for gestational age was the gold standard. A subsample of 122 women with neonatal weight measurements was taken up to seven days after estimated fetal weight measurements and symphisys-fundal classification was compared with Lubchenco growth reference curve as gold standard. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were calculated. The McNemar χ2 test was used for comparing sensitivity of both symphisys-fundal curves studied. RESULTS: The sensitivity of the new curve for detecting small for gestational age fetuses was 51.6% while that of the Brazilian Ministry of Health reference curve was significantly lower (12.5%). In the subsample using neonatal weight as gold standard, the sensitivity of the new reference curve was 85.7% while that of the Brazilian Ministry of Health was 42.9% for detecting small for gestational age. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic performance of the new curve for detecting small for gestational age fetuses was significantly higher than that of the Brazilian Ministry of Health reference curve.

243 Mid-second trimester estimated fetal weight >95th percentile and the association with large for gestational age

2021 ◽  
Vol 224 (2) ◽  
pp. S161
Author(s):  
Henry Lesser ◽  
Christopher D'Adamo ◽  
Danna Gal ◽  
Melissa Foy ◽  
Pedro Arrabal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gestational Age ◽  
Fetal Weight ◽  
Large For Gestational Age ◽  
Second Trimester ◽  
Estimated Fetal Weight
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document