Clinical formulas, mother's opinion and ultrasound in predicting birth weight
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2008 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | São Paulo medical journal (Online) |
Texto Completo: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802008000300002 |
Resumo: | 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 |