Clinical formulas, mother's opinion and ultrasound in predicting birth weight

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Torloni,Maria Regina
Publication Date: 2008
Other Authors: Sass,Nelson, Sato,Jussara Leiko, Renzi,Ana Carolina Pinheiro, Fukuyama,Maísa, Lucca,Paula Rubia de
Format: Article
Language: eng
Source: São Paulo medical journal (Online)
Download full: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802008000300002
Summary: CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Accurate fetal weight estimation is important for labor and delivery management. So far, there has not been any conclusive evidence to indicate that any technique for fetal weight estimation is superior to any other. Clinical formulas for fetal weight estimation are easy to use but have not been extensively studied in the literature. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of clinical formulas for fetal weight estimation compared to maternal and ultrasound estimates. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective study involving 100 full-term, cephalic, singleton pregnancies delivered within three days of fetal weight estimation. The setting was a tertiary public teaching hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. METHODS: Upon admission, the mother's opinion about fetal weight was recorded. Symphyseal-fundal height and abdominal girth were measured and two formulas were used to calculate fetal weight. An ultrasound scan was then performed by a specialist to estimate fetal weight. The four estimates were compared with the birth weight. The accuracy of the estimates was assessed by calculating the percentage that was within 10% of actual birth weight for each method. The chi-squared test was used for comparisons and p < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: The birth weight was correctly estimated (± 10%) in 59%, 57%, 61%, and 65% of the cases using the mother's estimate, two clinical formulas, and ultrasound estimate, respectively. The accuracy of the four methods did not differ significantly. CONCLUSION: Clinical formulas for fetal weight prediction are as accurate as maternal and ultrasound estimates.
id APM-1_e468b8b1df8391beb79e6b7e7cd4abbc
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1516-31802008000300002
network_acronym_str APM-1
network_name_str São Paulo medical journal (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Clinical formulas, mother's opinion and ultrasound in predicting birth weightFetal weightUltrasonography, prenatalBirth weightUterusOrgan sizeCONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Accurate fetal weight estimation is important for labor and delivery management. So far, there has not been any conclusive evidence to indicate that any technique for fetal weight estimation is superior to any other. Clinical formulas for fetal weight estimation are easy to use but have not been extensively studied in the literature. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of clinical formulas for fetal weight estimation compared to maternal and ultrasound estimates. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective study involving 100 full-term, cephalic, singleton pregnancies delivered within three days of fetal weight estimation. The setting was a tertiary public teaching hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. METHODS: Upon admission, the mother's opinion about fetal weight was recorded. Symphyseal-fundal height and abdominal girth were measured and two formulas were used to calculate fetal weight. An ultrasound scan was then performed by a specialist to estimate fetal weight. The four estimates were compared with the birth weight. The accuracy of the estimates was assessed by calculating the percentage that was within 10% of actual birth weight for each method. The chi-squared test was used for comparisons and p < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: The birth weight was correctly estimated (± 10%) in 59%, 57%, 61%, and 65% of the cases using the mother's estimate, two clinical formulas, and ultrasound estimate, respectively. The accuracy of the four methods did not differ significantly. CONCLUSION: Clinical formulas for fetal weight prediction are as accurate as maternal and ultrasound estimates.Associação Paulista de Medicina - APM2008-05-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802008000300002Sao Paulo Medical Journal v.126 n.3 2008reponame:São Paulo medical journal (Online)instname:Associação Paulista de Medicinainstacron:APM10.1590/S1516-31802008000300002info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessTorloni,Maria ReginaSass,NelsonSato,Jussara LeikoRenzi,Ana Carolina PinheiroFukuyama,MaísaLucca,Paula Rubia deeng2008-08-11T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1516-31802008000300002Revistahttp://www.scielo.br/spmjhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phprevistas@apm.org.br1806-94601516-3180opendoar:2008-08-11T00:00São Paulo medical journal (Online) - Associação Paulista de Medicinafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Clinical formulas, mother's opinion and ultrasound in predicting birth weight
title Clinical formulas, mother's opinion and ultrasound in predicting birth weight
spellingShingle Clinical formulas, mother's opinion and ultrasound in predicting birth weight
Torloni,Maria Regina
Fetal weight
Ultrasonography, prenatal
Birth weight
Uterus
Organ size
title_short Clinical formulas, mother's opinion and ultrasound in predicting birth weight
title_full Clinical formulas, mother's opinion and ultrasound in predicting birth weight
title_fullStr Clinical formulas, mother's opinion and ultrasound in predicting birth weight
title_full_unstemmed Clinical formulas, mother's opinion and ultrasound in predicting birth weight
title_sort Clinical formulas, mother's opinion and ultrasound in predicting birth weight
author Torloni,Maria Regina
author_facet Torloni,Maria Regina
Sass,Nelson
Sato,Jussara Leiko
Renzi,Ana Carolina Pinheiro
Fukuyama,Maísa
Lucca,Paula Rubia de
author_role author
author2 Sass,Nelson
Sato,Jussara Leiko
Renzi,Ana Carolina Pinheiro
Fukuyama,Maísa
Lucca,Paula Rubia de
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Torloni,Maria Regina
Sass,Nelson
Sato,Jussara Leiko
Renzi,Ana Carolina Pinheiro
Fukuyama,Maísa
Lucca,Paula Rubia de
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Fetal weight
Ultrasonography, prenatal
Birth weight
Uterus
Organ size
topic Fetal weight
Ultrasonography, prenatal
Birth weight
Uterus
Organ size
description CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Accurate fetal weight estimation is important for labor and delivery management. So far, there has not been any conclusive evidence to indicate that any technique for fetal weight estimation is superior to any other. Clinical formulas for fetal weight estimation are easy to use but have not been extensively studied in the literature. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of clinical formulas for fetal weight estimation compared to maternal and ultrasound estimates. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective study involving 100 full-term, cephalic, singleton pregnancies delivered within three days of fetal weight estimation. The setting was a tertiary public teaching hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. METHODS: Upon admission, the mother's opinion about fetal weight was recorded. Symphyseal-fundal height and abdominal girth were measured and two formulas were used to calculate fetal weight. An ultrasound scan was then performed by a specialist to estimate fetal weight. The four estimates were compared with the birth weight. The accuracy of the estimates was assessed by calculating the percentage that was within 10% of actual birth weight for each method. The chi-squared test was used for comparisons and p < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: The birth weight was correctly estimated (± 10%) in 59%, 57%, 61%, and 65% of the cases using the mother's estimate, two clinical formulas, and ultrasound estimate, respectively. The accuracy of the four methods did not differ significantly. CONCLUSION: Clinical formulas for fetal weight prediction are as accurate as maternal and ultrasound estimates.
publishDate 2008
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2008-05-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802008000300002
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802008000300002
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/S1516-31802008000300002
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Paulista de Medicina - APM
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Paulista de Medicina - APM
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Sao Paulo Medical Journal v.126 n.3 2008
reponame:São Paulo medical journal (Online)
instname:Associação Paulista de Medicina
instacron:APM
instname_str Associação Paulista de Medicina
instacron_str APM
institution APM
reponame_str São Paulo medical journal (Online)
collection São Paulo medical journal (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv São Paulo medical journal (Online) - Associação Paulista de Medicina
repository.mail.fl_str_mv revistas@apm.org.br
_version_ 1754209262132789248