4.6 Article

Clinical and ultrasound estimation of birth weight prior to induction of labor at term

Journal

ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Volume 29, Issue 3, Pages 304-309

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/uog.3949

Keywords

estimated fetal weight; induction of labor; pregnancy; ultrasound

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives To assess and compare the accuracy of clinical and sonographic fetal weight estimation in predicting birth weight prior to induction of labor. Methods In a prospective study of 262 women immediately prior to induction of labor, the fetal weight was estimated clinically by both the doctor (DR EFW) and the woman herself (WM EFW). A transabdominal scan was then performed to estimate the fetal weight sonographically using two different formulae - Shepard (SHEP EFW) and Hadlock (HAD EFW). The four estimated fetal weights were compared with the actual birth weight. Results The mean percentage error was -1.9 +/- 9.3% for DR EFW, -3.4 +/- 12.6% for WM EFW, -2.3 +/- 11.6% for SHEP EFW and -7.6 +/- 10.6% for HAD EFW. All four EFWs were significantly different from birth weight (t = -4.7, -5.5, -3.5 and -11.4, respectively, all P < 0.01). The corresponding Proportion of the EFWs which were within 10% of birth weight were 71%, 59%, 62% and 42%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of detecting a fetus weighing < 3000 g were 56% and 98% for DR EFW, 90% and 89% for WM EFW, 93% and 83% for SHEP EFW and 100% and 76% for HAD EFW. The corresponding values for detecting a fetus weighing > 4000 g were 16% and 99%, 29% and 96%, 48% and 92% and 40% and 94%, respectively. Conclusions Although, in general, clinical estimates of birth weight Perform favorably compared with ultrasonograpbic estimates, ultrasound immediately prior to labor is more accurate at predicting the low- or high-birth-weight fetus. Copyright (c) 2007 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available