Cargando…

Accuracy and precision of sonographic fetal weight estimation in Sweden

INTRODUCTION: Fetal growth assessment by ultrasound is an essential part of modern obstetric care. The formula by Persson and Weldner for estimated fetal weight (EFW), used in Sweden since decades, has not yet been evaluated. The objective of this study was to evaluate accuracy and precision of the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lindström, Linda, Cnattingius, Sven, Axelsson, Ove, Granfors, Michaela
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10201965/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36964980
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14554
_version_ 1785045351859748864
author Lindström, Linda
Cnattingius, Sven
Axelsson, Ove
Granfors, Michaela
author_facet Lindström, Linda
Cnattingius, Sven
Axelsson, Ove
Granfors, Michaela
author_sort Lindström, Linda
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Fetal growth assessment by ultrasound is an essential part of modern obstetric care. The formula by Persson and Weldner for estimated fetal weight (EFW), used in Sweden since decades, has not yet been evaluated. The objective of this study was to evaluate accuracy and precision of the formula by Persson and Weldner, and to compare it to two other formulae using biparietal diameter instead of head circumference. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study population consisted of 31 521 singleton pregnancies delivered at 22(+0) gestational weeks or later, with an ultrasound EFW performed within 2 days before delivery, registered in the Swedish Pregnancy Register between 2014 and 2021. Fetal biometric ultrasound measurements were used to calculate EFW according to the formulae by Persson and Weldner, Hadlock 2 and Shepard. Bland–Altman analysis, systematic error (mean percentage error), random error (standard deviation [SD] of mean percentage error), proportion of weight estimates within ±10% of birthweight, and proportion with underestimated and overestimated weight was calculated. Moreover, calculations were made after stratification into small, appropriate, and large for gestational age (SGA, AGA and LGA), respectively, and gestational age at examination. RESULTS: For the formula by Persson and Weldner, MPE was −2.7 (SD 8.9) and the proportion of EFW within ±10% from actual birthweight was 76.0%. MPE was largest for fetuses estimated as severe SGA (<3rd percentile, −5.4) and for the most preterm fetuses (<24 weeks, −5.4). For Hadlock 2 and Shepard's formulae, MPE were 3.9 (SD 8.9) and 3.4 (SD 9.7), respectively, and the proportions of EFW within ±10% from actual birthweight were 69.4% and 67.1%, respectively. MPE was largest for fetuses estimated as severe LGA (>97th percentile), 7.6 and 9.4, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The recommended Swedish formula by Persson and Weldner is generally accurate for fetal weight estimation. The systematic underestimation of EFW and random error is largest in extreme preterm and estimated SGA‐fetuses, which is of importance in clinical decision making. The accuracy of EFW with the formula by Persson and Weldner is as good as or better than Hadlock 2 and Shepard's formulae.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10201965
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102019652023-05-23 Accuracy and precision of sonographic fetal weight estimation in Sweden Lindström, Linda Cnattingius, Sven Axelsson, Ove Granfors, Michaela Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Pregnancy INTRODUCTION: Fetal growth assessment by ultrasound is an essential part of modern obstetric care. The formula by Persson and Weldner for estimated fetal weight (EFW), used in Sweden since decades, has not yet been evaluated. The objective of this study was to evaluate accuracy and precision of the formula by Persson and Weldner, and to compare it to two other formulae using biparietal diameter instead of head circumference. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study population consisted of 31 521 singleton pregnancies delivered at 22(+0) gestational weeks or later, with an ultrasound EFW performed within 2 days before delivery, registered in the Swedish Pregnancy Register between 2014 and 2021. Fetal biometric ultrasound measurements were used to calculate EFW according to the formulae by Persson and Weldner, Hadlock 2 and Shepard. Bland–Altman analysis, systematic error (mean percentage error), random error (standard deviation [SD] of mean percentage error), proportion of weight estimates within ±10% of birthweight, and proportion with underestimated and overestimated weight was calculated. Moreover, calculations were made after stratification into small, appropriate, and large for gestational age (SGA, AGA and LGA), respectively, and gestational age at examination. RESULTS: For the formula by Persson and Weldner, MPE was −2.7 (SD 8.9) and the proportion of EFW within ±10% from actual birthweight was 76.0%. MPE was largest for fetuses estimated as severe SGA (<3rd percentile, −5.4) and for the most preterm fetuses (<24 weeks, −5.4). For Hadlock 2 and Shepard's formulae, MPE were 3.9 (SD 8.9) and 3.4 (SD 9.7), respectively, and the proportions of EFW within ±10% from actual birthweight were 69.4% and 67.1%, respectively. MPE was largest for fetuses estimated as severe LGA (>97th percentile), 7.6 and 9.4, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The recommended Swedish formula by Persson and Weldner is generally accurate for fetal weight estimation. The systematic underestimation of EFW and random error is largest in extreme preterm and estimated SGA‐fetuses, which is of importance in clinical decision making. The accuracy of EFW with the formula by Persson and Weldner is as good as or better than Hadlock 2 and Shepard's formulae. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023-03-25 /pmc/articles/PMC10201965/ /pubmed/36964980 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14554 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG). https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Pregnancy
Lindström, Linda
Cnattingius, Sven
Axelsson, Ove
Granfors, Michaela
Accuracy and precision of sonographic fetal weight estimation in Sweden
title Accuracy and precision of sonographic fetal weight estimation in Sweden
title_full Accuracy and precision of sonographic fetal weight estimation in Sweden
title_fullStr Accuracy and precision of sonographic fetal weight estimation in Sweden
title_full_unstemmed Accuracy and precision of sonographic fetal weight estimation in Sweden
title_short Accuracy and precision of sonographic fetal weight estimation in Sweden
title_sort accuracy and precision of sonographic fetal weight estimation in sweden
topic Pregnancy
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10201965/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36964980
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14554
work_keys_str_mv AT lindstromlinda accuracyandprecisionofsonographicfetalweightestimationinsweden
AT cnattingiussven accuracyandprecisionofsonographicfetalweightestimationinsweden
AT axelssonove accuracyandprecisionofsonographicfetalweightestimationinsweden
AT granforsmichaela accuracyandprecisionofsonographicfetalweightestimationinsweden