Multivariable evaluation of term birth weight: a comparison between ultrasound biometry and symphysis-fundal height

Abstract

Although ultrasound biometry has provided the best values in fetal weight estimation, the predictive performance of both methods is limited.

Maternal KIR in Combination with Paternal HLA-C2 Regulate Human Birth Weight

“…These methods are both poorly predictive especially as birth weight increases. 30,31 Our results raise the possibility of using KIR and HLA-C genotyping to predict pregnancies at risk of fetal growth restriction or macrosomia. Further receptors in addition to KIR can impact uNK function and may also influence birth weight.…”

Comparing the accuracy of maternal, clinical, and ultrasound estimations to predict birthweight: a meta‐analysis

“…One and two studies to evaluate the relative ratios of the rate of ultrasound estimations within 5 and 15%, respectively, of actual birthweight to those of clinical estimations within the same range were not included in the analysis because the numbers of studies were too small (1,13). Five studies involving 492 women were extracted to evaluate the difference in correlation coefficient of actual birthweight with ultrasound estimation compared with clinical estimation (Table S2) (5,9,14,17,18,21). Maternal estimation was performed based on the women's experiences and their responses to a questionnaire (2)(3)(4)(7)(8)(9)11,20).…”

“…Maternal estimation was performed based on the women's experiences and their responses to a questionnaire (2)(3)(4)(7)(8)(9)11,20). Clinical and ultrasound estimations were performed based on various methods, including abdominal palpation and Leopold maneuver (40.5%, n = 15 of 37) (1,3,4,(6)(7)(8)(9)11,15,16) and the formulas of Hadlock I, II, III, and IV (1985) (70.3%, n = 26 of 37) (1,3,(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)20,21), respectively ( Table 2 and Table S2). All were cohort studies in singleton pregnancies and were conducted in three developing and five developed countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, and North America ( Table 1).…”

“…"no" response to repetition of maternal estimation (n = 3) (3,7,20) or ultrasound estimation (n = 5) (2,7-10), report of intervals between the estimations and delivery (n = 3) (8,9,20), estimations within 24 h of delivery (n = 3) (1,(17)(18)(19), 48 h of delivery (n = 4) (1,8,(17)(18)(19), and 2 weeks of delivery (n = 3) (8,9,20), use of fundal height (n = 3) (12,15,18), use of formulas including biparietal diameter (BPD)/head circumference (HC), abdominal circumference (AC), and foot length (FL) (see "Classification of ultrasound formulas" in the Appendix S1 Results) (n = 3) (2,8,20), and use of Hadlock II and III (1985) formulasi.e. two formulas including BPD/HC, AC, and FL (n = 5 and 3, respectively) (2,5,7,8,13,15,17,18,20). The difference in correlation coefficient of actual birthweight with ultrasound estimation compared with clinical estimation was summarized from homogeneous data in the total population (see "Secondary outcomes" in the Appendix S1 Results, Table S2) (5,9,14,17,18,21).…”

“…two formulas including BPD/HC, AC, and FL (n = 5 and 3, respectively) (2,5,7,8,13,15,17,18,20). The difference in correlation coefficient of actual birthweight with ultrasound estimation compared with clinical estimation was summarized from homogeneous data in the total population (see "Secondary outcomes" in the Appendix S1 Results, Table S2) (5,9,14,17,18,21).…”