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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Galluzzo, Roberto Noya, Trapani, Alberto, Werner, Heron, de Sá, Renato Augusto Moreira, Xikota, João Carlos, Araujo, Edward, de Souza Pires, Maria Marlene
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