A systematic review of the ultrasound estimation of fetal weight

被引:405
作者
Dudley, NJ [1 ]
机构
[1] City Hosp Nottingham, Dept Phys Med, Nottingham NG5 1PB, England
关键词
fetal weight; systematic review; ultrasound;
D O I
10.1002/uog.1751
中图分类号
O42 [声学];
学科分类号
070206 ; 082403 ;
摘要
Objectives The range and use of ultrasound fetal measurements have gradually been extended. Measurements have been combined to estimate fetal weight by mathematically based non-linear regression analysis or physically based volumetric methods. Fetal weight estimation is inaccurate, with poor sensitivity for prediction of fetal compromise. Several authors have shown the unacceptable level of intra- and interobserver variability in fetal measurement and the impact of errors on growth assessment. The aims of this study were to review the available methods and possible sources of inaccuracy. Methods Four databases were searched for studies comparing ultrasound estimated fetal weight (EFW) with birth weight. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria evaluated 11 different methods. Errors were graphically summarized. Results No consistently superior method has emerged. Volumetric methods provide some theoretical advantages. Random errors are large and must be reduced if clinical errors are to be avoided. Conclusions The accuracy of EFW is compromised by large intra- and interobserver variability. Efforts must be made to minimize this variability if EFW is to be clinically useful. This may be achieved through averaging of multiple measurements, improvements in image quality, uniform calibration of equipment, careful design and refinement of measurement methods, acknowledgment that there is a long learning curve, and regular audit of measurement quality. Further work to improve the universal validity and accuracy of fetal weight estimation formulae is also required. Copyright (C) 2004 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley Sons, Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:80 / 89
页数:10
相关论文
共 73 条
[1]   DOPPLER ULTRASONOGRAPHY IN HIGH-RISK PREGNANCIES - SYSTEMATIC REVIEW WITH METAANALYSIS [J].
ALFIREVIC, Z ;
NEILSON, JP .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1995, 172 (05) :1379-1387
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2002, Cochrane Reviewers Handbook 415
[3]   FETAL WEIGHT ESTIMATION BY ECHO-PLANAR MAGNETIC-RESONANCE-IMAGING [J].
BAKER, PN ;
JOHNSON, IR ;
GOWLAND, PA ;
HYKIN, J ;
HARVEY, PR ;
FREEMAN, A ;
ADAMS, V ;
WORTHINGTON, BS ;
MANSFIELD, P .
LANCET, 1994, 343 (8898) :644-645
[4]   The long-term outcome of retarded fetal growth [J].
Barker, DJP .
CLINICAL OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1997, 40 (04) :853-863
[5]   SONOGRAPHICALLY ESTIMATED FETAL WEIGHTS - ACCURACY AND LIMITATION [J].
BENACERRAF, BR ;
GELMAN, R ;
FRIGOLETTO, FD .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1988, 159 (05) :1118-1121
[6]  
BERNSTEIN IM, 1992, OBSTET GYNECOL, V79, P561
[7]   Estimation of fetal weight before and after amniotomy in the laboring gravid woman [J].
Blann, DW ;
Prien, SD .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2000, 182 (05) :1117-1120
[8]   ULTRASONIC MEASUREMENT OF FETAL ABDOMEN CIRCUMFERENCE IN ESTIMATION OF FETAL WEIGHT [J].
CAMPBELL, S ;
WILKIN, D .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 1975, 82 (09) :689-697
[9]   ULTRASONIC FETAL WEIGHT ESTIMATION - ANALYSIS OF INTEROBSERVER AND INTRAOBSERVER VARIABILITY [J].
CHANG, TC ;
ROBSON, SC ;
SPENCER, JAD ;
GALLIVAN, S .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ULTRASOUND, 1993, 21 (08) :515-519
[10]   Antepartum detection of macrosomic fetus: Clinical versus sonographic, including soft-tissue measurements [J].
Chauhan, SP ;
West, DJ ;
Scardo, JA ;
Boyd, JM ;
Joiner, J ;
Hendrix, NW .
OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2000, 95 (05) :639-642