Cargando…
Fetal ultrasound estimated weight and correlation to Brazilian newborn weight
BACKGROUND: To compare the best fetal weight formula with different biometric tables on the weight of Brazilian newborns. METHODS: This observational study has tested the performance of different common fetal weight formulas and biometric tables. Weight estimates were performed by the methods of War...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Exeley Inc.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7409559/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32609964 http://dx.doi.org/10.15557/JoU.2020.0017 |
_version_ | 1783568083015696384 |
---|---|
author | Galluzzo, Roberto Noya Trapani, Alberto Werner, Heron de Sá, Renato Augusto Moreira Xikota, João Carlos Araujo, Edward de Souza Pires, Maria Marlene |
author_facet | Galluzzo, Roberto Noya Trapani, Alberto Werner, Heron de Sá, Renato Augusto Moreira Xikota, João Carlos Araujo, Edward de Souza Pires, Maria Marlene |
author_sort | Galluzzo, Roberto Noya |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: To compare the best fetal weight formula with different biometric tables on the weight of Brazilian newborns. METHODS: This observational study has tested the performance of different common fetal weight formulas and biometric tables. Weight estimates were performed by the methods of Warsof et al. (1977), Shepard et al. (1982), Hadlock et al. (1985), Furlan et al. (2012) and Stirnemann et al. (2017). The biometric tables selected were the following: Snijders and Nicolaides (1994), Hadlock et al. (1984), Papageorghiou et al. (2014) and Kiserud et al. (2016) and correlated to Pedreira et al. (2011) database, which was considered the gold standard. Statistical analyses were performed using the mean relative error, average absolute error and the Pearson correlation coefficient (r). RESULTS: The best r was found when using the Snijders and Nicolaides (1994) biometric table with weight formula by Stirnemann et al. (2017). The average relative error was lower when using weight formula by Shepard et al. (1982) with biometric tables by Snijders and Nicolaides (1994), Papageorghiou et al. (2014) or Kiserud et al. (2016). On average, absolute error, the lowest r was obtained for the Furlan et al. (2012) weight formula and the Papageorghiou et al. (2014) biometric table. CONCLUSIONS: The best correlation was found for biometric table by Snijders and Nicolaides (1994) and fetal weight formula calculation for the estimation of Brazilian newborn weight by Stirnemann et al. (2017). |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7409559 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Exeley Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-74095592020-08-10 Fetal ultrasound estimated weight and correlation to Brazilian newborn weight Galluzzo, Roberto Noya Trapani, Alberto Werner, Heron de Sá, Renato Augusto Moreira Xikota, João Carlos Araujo, Edward de Souza Pires, Maria Marlene J Ultrason Medicine BACKGROUND: To compare the best fetal weight formula with different biometric tables on the weight of Brazilian newborns. METHODS: This observational study has tested the performance of different common fetal weight formulas and biometric tables. Weight estimates were performed by the methods of Warsof et al. (1977), Shepard et al. (1982), Hadlock et al. (1985), Furlan et al. (2012) and Stirnemann et al. (2017). The biometric tables selected were the following: Snijders and Nicolaides (1994), Hadlock et al. (1984), Papageorghiou et al. (2014) and Kiserud et al. (2016) and correlated to Pedreira et al. (2011) database, which was considered the gold standard. Statistical analyses were performed using the mean relative error, average absolute error and the Pearson correlation coefficient (r). RESULTS: The best r was found when using the Snijders and Nicolaides (1994) biometric table with weight formula by Stirnemann et al. (2017). The average relative error was lower when using weight formula by Shepard et al. (1982) with biometric tables by Snijders and Nicolaides (1994), Papageorghiou et al. (2014) or Kiserud et al. (2016). On average, absolute error, the lowest r was obtained for the Furlan et al. (2012) weight formula and the Papageorghiou et al. (2014) biometric table. CONCLUSIONS: The best correlation was found for biometric table by Snijders and Nicolaides (1994) and fetal weight formula calculation for the estimation of Brazilian newborn weight by Stirnemann et al. (2017). Exeley Inc. 2020-07 2020-06-15 /pmc/articles/PMC7409559/ /pubmed/32609964 http://dx.doi.org/10.15557/JoU.2020.0017 Text en © Polish Ultrasound Society http://creativecommons.org/licenses/cc-by-nc-nd/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/cc-by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial NoDerivatives License (CC BY-NC-ND). Reproduction is permitted for personal, educational, non-commercial use, provided that the original article is in whole, unmodified, and properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Medicine Galluzzo, Roberto Noya Trapani, Alberto Werner, Heron de Sá, Renato Augusto Moreira Xikota, João Carlos Araujo, Edward de Souza Pires, Maria Marlene Fetal ultrasound estimated weight and correlation to Brazilian newborn weight |
title | Fetal ultrasound estimated weight and correlation to Brazilian newborn weight |
title_full | Fetal ultrasound estimated weight and correlation to Brazilian newborn weight |
title_fullStr | Fetal ultrasound estimated weight and correlation to Brazilian newborn weight |
title_full_unstemmed | Fetal ultrasound estimated weight and correlation to Brazilian newborn weight |
title_short | Fetal ultrasound estimated weight and correlation to Brazilian newborn weight |
title_sort | fetal ultrasound estimated weight and correlation to brazilian newborn weight |
topic | Medicine |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7409559/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32609964 http://dx.doi.org/10.15557/JoU.2020.0017 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT galluzzorobertonoya fetalultrasoundestimatedweightandcorrelationtobraziliannewbornweight AT trapanialberto fetalultrasoundestimatedweightandcorrelationtobraziliannewbornweight AT wernerheron fetalultrasoundestimatedweightandcorrelationtobraziliannewbornweight AT desarenatoaugustomoreira fetalultrasoundestimatedweightandcorrelationtobraziliannewbornweight AT xikotajoaocarlos fetalultrasoundestimatedweightandcorrelationtobraziliannewbornweight AT araujoedward fetalultrasoundestimatedweightandcorrelationtobraziliannewbornweight AT desouzapiresmariamarlene fetalultrasoundestimatedweightandcorrelationtobraziliannewbornweight |