Abstract
Purpose
The accuracy of sonographic estimation of birth weight (EBW) is compromised by the precision of the biometrical measurements and the quality of the algorithms. This prospective study was to evaluate technical aspects to derive new equations for the EBW.
Methods
Three consecutive phases were carried out (1) to recruit a homogenous population, (2) to derive eight new algorithms using a multiple stepwise mathematical/statistical method, and (3) to test the accuracy of the developed equations. Only those patients with a singleton pregnancy who delivered within 48 h from the scan were considered for the analysis.
Results
The study population was made of 473 women. Four polynomial, two square root and two logarithmic algorithms were derived from a balanced study group of 200 women selected from the original study population. These formulas were subsequently applied and compared between them and showed a significant correlation with birth weight (p < 0.0001) and satisfactory statistical performances (r > 0.9), nevertheless they performed similarly to other equations previously published.
Conclusions
The present findings define better the limitations associated with the intrinsic properties of algorithms and highlight that the possibility to improve the precision of sonographic measurements remains the only point at issue to increase the accuracy in the prediction of birth weight.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Scioscia M, Vimercati A, Ceci O, Vicino M, Selvaggi LE (2008) Estimation of birth weight by two-dimensional ultrasonography: a critical appraisal of its accuracy. Obstet Gynecol 111:57–65
Dudley NJ (2005) A systematic review of the ultrasound estimation of fetal weight. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 25:80–89
Bernstein IM, Goran MI, Amini SB, Catalano PM (1997) Differential growth of fetal tissues during the second half of pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 176:28–32
Bernstein IM (2005) Fetal body composition. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 8:613–617
Larciprete G, Valensise H, Vasapollo B, Novelli GP, Parretti E, Altomare F, Di PG, Menghini S, Barbati G, Mello G, Arduini D (2003) Fetal subcutaneous tissue thickness (SCTT) in healthy and gestational diabetic pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 22:591–597
Larciprete G, Valensise H, Di PG, Vasapollo B, Casalino B, Arduini D, Jarvis S, Cirese E (2005) Intrauterine growth restriction and fetal body composition. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 26:258–262
Scioscia M, Scioscia F, Vimercati A, Caradonna F, Nardelli C, Pinto LR, Selvaggi LE (2008) Estimation of fetal weight by measurement of fetal thigh soft-tissue thickness in the late third trimester. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 31:314–320
Mongelli M, Tambyraja R (2003) Ultrasonic fetal weight estimation and tolerance to measurement error: a comparative analysis. Australas Radiol 47:389–392
Kurmanavicius J, Burkhardt T, Wisser J, Huch R (2004) Ultrasonographic fetal weight estimation: accuracy of formulas and accuracy of examiners by birth weight from 500 to 5,000 g. J Perinat Med 32:155–161
Chang TC, Robson SC, Spencer JA, Gallivan S (1993) Ultrasonic fetal weight estimation: analysis of inter- and intra-observer variability. J Clin Ultrasound 21:515–519
Mongelli M, Biswas A (2002) Menstrual age-dependent systematic error in sonographic fetal weight estimation: a mathematical model. J Clin Ultrasound 30:139–144
Rousseeuw PJ, Leroy AM (1987) Robust regression and outlier detection. Wiley-Interscience, New York (Series in Applied Probability and Statistics)
Dillon WR, Goldstein M (1984) Multivariate analysis: methods and applications. Wiley, New York
Toutenburg H (2002) Statistical analysis of designed experiments, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin
Anderson NG, Jolley IJ, Wells JE (2007) Sonographic estimation of fetal weight: comparison of bias, precision and consistency using 12 different formulae. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 30:173–179
Edwards A, Goff J, Baker L (2001) Accuracy and modifying factors of the sonographic estimation of fetal weight in a high-risk population. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 41:187–190
Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310
Kehl S, Schmidt U, Spaich S, Schild RL, Sütterlin M, Siemer J (2012) What are the limits of accuracy in fetal weight estimation with conventional biometry in two-dimensional ultrasound? A novel postpartum study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 39(5):543–548
Pagani G, Palai N, Zatti S, Fratelli N, Prefumo F, Frusca T (2014) Fetal weight estimation in gestational diabetic pregnancies: comparison between conventional and three-dimensional fractional thigh volume methods using gestation-adjusted projection. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 43(1):72–76
Cevenini G, Severi FM, Bocchi C, Petraglia F, Barbini P (2008) An informative probability model enhancing real time echobiometry to improve fetal weight estimation accuracy. Med Biol Eng Comput 46:109–120
Conflict of interest
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Scioscia, M., Scioscia, F., Scioscia, G. et al. Statistical limits in sonographic estimation of birth weight. Arch Gynecol Obstet 291, 59–66 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3384-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3384-4