AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Research Article | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/2578-8965/008
1 Department of obstetrics and gynecology, Ain Shams University, Egypt.
*Corresponding Author: Amr El Helali, Department of obstetrics and gynecology, Ain Shams University, Egypt, E-mail: ayman_gamal007@yahoo.com
Citation: Amr abd el Fattah El Helali , Amal el Shabrawi El Sayed, Wesal Hamdi Ali Hassan, (2018) Sonographic Versus Clinical Fetal Weight Estimation Accuracy. J. Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences. 2(1); Doi: 10.31579/2578-8965/008
Copyright: © 2018 Amr El Helali et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Received: 28 March 2018 | Accepted: 07 May 2018 | Published: 08 May 2018
Keywords: Fetal weight, Ultrasound assessment of fetal weight, clinical assessment of fetal weight.
Background: Sonographic fetal weight estimation is an important component of antenatal care. It was found to be more reliable method to establish fetal weight at term and more consistent in various period of gestations.
Aim of study: to compare clinical and sonographic methods for assessment of fetal weight regarding sensitivity, specificity and accuracy.
Subjects and Methods: The study recruited 100 women scheduled for delivery from ante-natal care clinic with 38 weeks or more of gestation. Fetal weight was assed clinically and by ultrasound. Both techniques were compared and analyzed.
Results: Ultrasound assessment of fetal weight showed better performance than the clinical method regarding absolute errors and error percentages. Ultrasound assessment showed better sensitivity and specificity in detecting fetal weight > 3500 gm. Moreover, it showed less bias on Bland–Altman plot analysis.
Conclusions: Ultrasound assessment of fetal weight is safe, reliable and sensitive method of fetal weight estimation.
The estimation of the fetal weight is of major interest in many situations when the route of delivery has to be determined including breech presentations, diabetes and suspected macrosomia. In fact, delivery of a macrosomic fetus can be linked with significant maternal and perinatal morbidity. Detection of the macrosomic fetus prior to delivery could have a significant impact on reducing that morbidit [1-3].
On the other hand, in imminent preterm birth at the limit of viability between 23(0/7) and 26(0/7) weeks of gestation, it is crucial to determine fetal weight to help manage expected complications. Moreover, estimation of fetal weight proved to be useful in prediction of future events including childhood obesity [4-6].
Clinical estimation and ultrasonographic fetal weight estimation are the 2 methods commonly used to predict fetal weight. Clinical estimation of fetal weight is a routine practice in the delivery room. It has an important role in the assessment and planning of the delivery progress, it allows the clinician to predict possible complications such as macrosomia and plan for obstetric interventions where needed [7-9].
For sonographic assessment of fetal weight, many formulas are used. However, they differ in accuracy. In addition, accuracy differs according to the day of weight estimation. However, it should be noted that high maternal weight, height, body mass index, multiparity, older maternal age, diabetes, and fetal male sex were associated with underestimation of sonographic assessment of fetal weight [10-12].
In a recent study, comparison between clinical and sonographic methods showed significantly better sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of sonographic methods when compared with clinical tools. However, in another study no significant differences were found between clinical and sonographic methods for assessment of fetal weight during labor [13-15].
The present study aims to compare clinical and sonographic methods for assessment of fetal weight regarding sensitivity, specificity and accuracy.
The present study is a prospective comparative study. It was conducted at Ain Shams University Maternity Hospital after obtaining informed consent from all participants. One hundred pregnant woman scheduled for delivery from ante-natal care clinic were recruited for the study. They were selected according to the following inclusion criteria: Singleton pregnancy, gestational age after 38 weeks, normal amniotic index and BMI less than 30 kg/m2. Exclusion criteria included twin pregnancy, gestational age before 38weeks of gestation, abnormal amniotic index, obesity and congenital malformations.Participants included in following study were subjected to careful history taking, full clinical and obstetrical examination.Clinical assessment of fetal weight was achieved by single practitioner (senior resident), by measuring length from mid-point of upper edge of symphesis pupis to the highest fundal point to give fundal height [FH] in centimeter then measuring abdominal girth [AG] by measuring women waist in centimeter then calculate fetal Weight in grams by (FH × AG).Sonographic assessment of fetal weight was achieved by two dimensional ultrasound and single sonographer by measuring biparietal diameter (BPD), head circumference (HC), abdominal circumference (AC) and femur length (FL) then fetal weight was calculated using Hadlock formula where fetal weight = (log10 2D estimate = 1.5115 + 0.0436 [abdominal circumference] + 0.1517 [femur length] – 0.00321 [abdominal circumference × femur length] + 0.0006923 [biparietal diameter × head circumference]). Women were delivered within 3 days, the neonate was weighted, then the clinical and sonographic weight were compared to the actual weight.Data were collected, tabulated, then analyzed using IBM© SPSS© Statistics version 22. Normally distributed numerical data were presented as mean and SD, and skewed data as median and interquartile range. Qualitative data were presented as number and percentage. Comparison of normally distributed numerical data were done using the unpaired Student t test. Categorical data were compared using the chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test, when appropriate. Correlation analysis was performed using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Accuracy of fetal weight estimation was examined by calculating the absolute error (EFW - BW) and error percentage using the formula (EFW - BW / BW) ´ 100.
Reliability of clinical and sonographic methods of fetal weigh was determined using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) where area under the curve (AUC) sensitivity, specificity were determined. Bland-Altman plot analysis was used to detect agreement between investigations.
Basic data of 100 women included in the study are shown in table-1.
The studied women had an age of 25.7 ± 4.0 years, a BMI of 27.3 ± 1.6 Kg/m2 a gestational age of 274.6 ± 5.7 days and a parity of 1.5 ± 1.1 deliveries. Vaginal delivery was the mode of delivery in 43 women while 57 women were delivered by CS. Clinical fetal weight estimation in the studied women ranged from 2784.0 - 4485.0 grams with a mean ± SD of 3545.0 ± 456.9 grams. Ultrasound fetal weight estimation ranged from 2369.0 - 4349.0 grams with a mean ± SD of 3397.7 ± 487.7 grams.
Comparison between clinical and ultrasound fetal weight estimates and the actual birth weight revealed that both estimates are significantly higher the actual birth weight. In addition, it was shown that clinical estimate is significantly higher ultrasound estimate. Comparing clinical and ultrasound methods showed significantly higher mean absolute error and mean error percentages in the clinical method. Comparison between clinical and ultrasound methods regarding absolute mean error at different gestational ages showed significantly higher absolute mean error in the clinical method at different gestational ages. Comparison between clinical and ultrasound methods regarding error percentages showed significantly higher frequency of high error percentages rates in the clinical methods when compared with the ultrasound methods (Table-2).
Correlation analysis between clinically estimated fetal weight and the clinical data showed significantly direct correlation between Clinical EFW and gestational age, ultrasound EFW and actual BW. Also, correlation analysis between clinically estimated fetal weight and the clinical data showed significantly direct correlation between Clinical EFW and gestational age, ultrasound EFW and actual BW (Table-3)
Value of clinical and ultrasound EFW determination in predicting actual fetal weight > 3500 gm is shown in table-4 and fig. 1. Ultrasound EFW had higher AUC and better sensitivity.
Bland–Altman plot analysis for agreement between clinical and ultrasound EFW is shown in fig. 2 and 3 respectively. While both plots shows that most differences lie within the higher and lower confidence intervals, the bias is notably lower in the ultrasound plot.
Perinatal mortality and morbidity remains a chief health issue strongly corelated with fetal growth pattern, an issue of research interest showing that fetal growth issues is correlated to the risk of common non communicable diseases in adulthood.
Fetal weight assessment is one of the most vital aspects of antenatal care. At full term, fetal weight evaluation is an important factor for the clinical decision about the mode of delivery and the timing of induction .Additionally, estimated fetal weight (EFW) and fetal biometry are complementary measures used to screen for fetal growth disturbances.
Sonographic fetal weight estimation is an important component of antenatal care. However, although numerous methods were developed to compute the sonographic fetal weight estimation from fetal parameters, a high random error features most of them, undermining the accuracy of the sonographic fetal weight estimation and probably influencing clinical decision making concerning follow up of gestation and delivery [1-5]. On the other hand, ultrasound was found to be more reliable method to establish fetal weight at term and more consistent in various period of gestations. Clinical method can be reliably used to screen large babies in centers where ultrasound has limited availability [7-9].
The current research study aimed to compare and contrast clinical and sonographic methods for assessment of fetal weight regarding sensitivity, specificity and accuracy. The study recruited 100 women scheduled for delivery from ante-natal care clinic with 38 weeks or more of gestation. Fetal weight was assed clinically and by ultrasound. Both techniques were compared and analyzed. In the current study, comparison between clinical and ultrasound fetal weight estimates and the actual birth weight revealed that both estimates are significantly higher the actual birth weight. In addition, it was shown that clinical estimate is significantly higher than ultrasound estimate. This is in harmony with the study of on 200 term pregnant women. They used three formulae for the estimation of fetal weight at term; the Hadlock formula for the USG method, and two different formulas for clinical methods, maternal symphysis-fundal height and abdominal circumference at the level of umbilicus. The authors concluded that all three methods statistically overestimated birth weight for the high and normal birth weight groups. However, in a previous research study performed comparing the accuracy of clinical and sonographic methods of predicting fetal weights at term, clinical fetal weight estimation was significantly higher actual weight while ultrasound assessment was significantly lower actual weight [10-13].
The discrepancy between different studies may be attributed to different body mass indexes of the studied women. The study of highlighted the value of BMI in modulating the sonographically assessed fetal weight where increased BMI was associated with increased estimates of ultrasound fetal weight assessment [15].
In addition, it was found that comparing clinical and ultrasound methods showed significantly higher mean absolute error and mean error percentages in the clinical method. Furthermore, we noted that comparison between clinical and ultrasound methods regarding absolute mean error at different gestational ages showed significantly higher absolute mean error in the clinical method at different gestational ages. Moreover, comparison between clinical and ultrasound methods regarding error percentages showed significantly higher frequency of high error percentages rates in the clinical methods when compared with the ultrasound methods.[17]
This is in accordance with a prior research performed which compared the accuracy of clinical and ultrasound methods of fetal weight estimation in 200 consecutive term pregnancies. They noted that ultrasound assessment had significantly lower absolute errors and error percentages as compared to clinical methods [10].
Likewise, another research study similarly performed compared the accuracy of sonographic versus clinical methods of fetal weight estimation in 200 term women. The study found significantly lower mean percentage error and mean absolute percentage error with ultrasonic fetal assessments in babies weighing less than 4 kg [4].
More recently a group of researchers, performed a cross sectional study over a period of 6 months. All singleton term mothers with cephalic presentation and intact membranes with ultrasound examination done within a week were included in the study. The study found significantly lower mean error, absolute error and error percentages in the ultrasonic weight assessment versus clinical fetal weight assessment as contrasted to the actual weight of the studied babies [7-8].
Correlation analysis between clinically estimated fetal weight and the clinical data showed significantly direct correlation between Clinical EFW and gestational age, ultrasound EFW and actual BW likewise, These findings are in accordance with the a fore mentioned previous research.
Moreover, the study of by a research group evaluated the accuracy of fetal weight prediction by ultrasonography in 145 cases and found a significant, yet low, linear relationship between birth weight and estimated fetal weigh
Importantly, it was shown that ultrasound EFW had higher AUC and better sensitivity and specificity for the estimation of fetal weight > 3500 gm. The reliable sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound fetal weight estimation was also reported by the study who compared the accuracy of ultrasound, clinical and maternal estimates of fetal weight in 246 parous women with singleton, term pregnancies. In their work, ultrasound assessment of fetal weight was comparable to clinical methods.
In addition, reported that the sensitivity and specificity of clinical method and ultrasonographic method for identifying fetal birth weight above 3500 gm was 69.23; 65.67% and 46.15; 80.60%, respectively. Moreover, the study of in their work, they compare the accuracy of abdominal palpation with that of ultrasound performed by different examiners to estimate fetal weight. The authors showed that ultrasound notably dominated the clinical methods in the accurate assessment of fetal weight.
Bland–Altman plot analysis showed that most differences lie within the higher and lower confidence intervals, the bias is notably lower in the ultrasound plot. This is in agreement with the study of. In their work, they proposed to sonographically estimate fetal weight at term in a convenience sample of 282 women and to compare estimated with actual birth weights to determine the validity of estimated fetal weights. The study found that Bland and Altman plot analysis showed strong agreement between EFWs and ABWs because it was only in very few instances that differences between the two fell outside the 95% limit of agreement.
Also, in aprior study involving 500 singleton gestations, sonographic assesments were performed. Estimated fetal weights have been calculated and compared with the corresponding birth weights. According to Bland-Altman analysis, bias was -85.06 g (95% limits of agreement: -663.33 to 494.21) indicating good agreement between actual and ultrasound fetal assessments.
Sonographic evaluation of fetal weight displayed superiority than the clinical approach as regards absolute errors and error percentages. Sonographic examination additionally revealed better statistical sensitivity and specificity in detection of fetal weight > 3500 gm. Moreover, it showed less bias on Bland–Altman plot analysis.
Clearly Auctoresonline and particularly Psychology and Mental Health Care Journal is dedicated to improving health care services for individuals and populations. The editorial boards' ability to efficiently recognize and share the global importance of health literacy with a variety of stakeholders. Auctoresonline publishing platform can be used to facilitate of optimal client-based services and should be added to health care professionals' repertoire of evidence-based health care resources.
Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Intervention The submission and review process was adequate. However I think that the publication total value should have been enlightened in early fases. Thank you for all.
Journal of Women Health Care and Issues By the present mail, I want to say thank to you and tour colleagues for facilitating my published article. Specially thank you for the peer review process, support from the editorial office. I appreciate positively the quality of your journal.
Journal of Clinical Research and Reports I would be very delighted to submit my testimonial regarding the reviewer board and the editorial office. The reviewer board were accurate and helpful regarding any modifications for my manuscript. And the editorial office were very helpful and supportive in contacting and monitoring with any update and offering help. It was my pleasure to contribute with your promising Journal and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
We would like to thank the Journal of Thoracic Disease and Cardiothoracic Surgery because of the services they provided us for our articles. The peer-review process was done in a very excellent time manner, and the opinions of the reviewers helped us to improve our manuscript further. The editorial office had an outstanding correspondence with us and guided us in many ways. During a hard time of the pandemic that is affecting every one of us tremendously, the editorial office helped us make everything easier for publishing scientific work. Hope for a more scientific relationship with your Journal.
The peer-review process which consisted high quality queries on the paper. I did answer six reviewers’ questions and comments before the paper was accepted. The support from the editorial office is excellent.
Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. I had the experience of publishing a research article recently. The whole process was simple from submission to publication. The reviewers made specific and valuable recommendations and corrections that improved the quality of my publication. I strongly recommend this Journal.
Dr. Katarzyna Byczkowska My testimonial covering: "The peer review process is quick and effective. The support from the editorial office is very professional and friendly. Quality of the Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on cardiology that is useful for other professionals in the field.
Thank you most sincerely, with regard to the support you have given in relation to the reviewing process and the processing of my article entitled "Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of The Prostate Gland: A Review and Update" for publication in your esteemed Journal, Journal of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics". The editorial team has been very supportive.
Testimony of Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology: work with your Reviews has been a educational and constructive experience. The editorial office were very helpful and supportive. It was a pleasure to contribute to your Journal.
Dr. Bernard Terkimbi Utoo, I am happy to publish my scientific work in Journal of Women Health Care and Issues (JWHCI). The manuscript submission was seamless and peer review process was top notch. I was amazed that 4 reviewers worked on the manuscript which made it a highly technical, standard and excellent quality paper. I appreciate the format and consideration for the APC as well as the speed of publication. It is my pleasure to continue with this scientific relationship with the esteem JWHCI.
This is an acknowledgment for peer reviewers, editorial board of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. They show a lot of consideration for us as publishers for our research article “Evaluation of the different factors associated with side effects of COVID-19 vaccination on medical students, Mutah university, Al-Karak, Jordan”, in a very professional and easy way. This journal is one of outstanding medical journal.
Dear Hao Jiang, to Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing We greatly appreciate the efficient, professional and rapid processing of our paper by your team. If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know. On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to express our great appreciation to editor and reviewers.
As an author who has recently published in the journal "Brain and Neurological Disorders". I am delighted to provide a testimonial on the peer review process, editorial office support, and the overall quality of the journal. The peer review process at Brain and Neurological Disorders is rigorous and meticulous, ensuring that only high-quality, evidence-based research is published. The reviewers are experts in their fields, and their comments and suggestions were constructive and helped improve the quality of my manuscript. The review process was timely and efficient, with clear communication from the editorial office at each stage. The support from the editorial office was exceptional throughout the entire process. The editorial staff was responsive, professional, and always willing to help. They provided valuable guidance on formatting, structure, and ethical considerations, making the submission process seamless. Moreover, they kept me informed about the status of my manuscript and provided timely updates, which made the process less stressful. The journal Brain and Neurological Disorders is of the highest quality, with a strong focus on publishing cutting-edge research in the field of neurology. The articles published in this journal are well-researched, rigorously peer-reviewed, and written by experts in the field. The journal maintains high standards, ensuring that readers are provided with the most up-to-date and reliable information on brain and neurological disorders. In conclusion, I had a wonderful experience publishing in Brain and Neurological Disorders. The peer review process was thorough, the editorial office provided exceptional support, and the journal's quality is second to none. I would highly recommend this journal to any researcher working in the field of neurology and brain disorders.
Dear Agrippa Hilda, Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery, Editorial Coordinator, I trust this message finds you well. I want to extend my appreciation for considering my article for publication in your esteemed journal. I am pleased to provide a testimonial regarding the peer review process and the support received from your editorial office. The peer review process for my paper was carried out in a highly professional and thorough manner. The feedback and comments provided by the authors were constructive and very useful in improving the quality of the manuscript. This rigorous assessment process undoubtedly contributes to the high standards maintained by your journal.
International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. I strongly recommend to consider submitting your work to this high-quality journal. The support and availability of the Editorial staff is outstanding and the review process was both efficient and rigorous.
Thank you very much for publishing my Research Article titled “Comparing Treatment Outcome Of Allergic Rhinitis Patients After Using Fluticasone Nasal Spray And Nasal Douching" in the Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology. As Medical Professionals we are immensely benefited from study of various informative Articles and Papers published in this high quality Journal. I look forward to enriching my knowledge by regular study of the Journal and contribute my future work in the field of ENT through the Journal for use by the medical fraternity. The support from the Editorial office was excellent and very prompt. I also welcome the comments received from the readers of my Research Article.
Dear Erica Kelsey, Editorial Coordinator of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics Our team is very satisfied with the processing of our paper by your journal. That was fast, efficient, rigorous, but without unnecessary complications. We appreciated the very short time between the submission of the paper and its publication on line on your site.
I am very glad to say that the peer review process is very successful and fast and support from the Editorial Office. Therefore, I would like to continue our scientific relationship for a long time. And I especially thank you for your kindly attention towards my article. Have a good day!
"We recently published an article entitled “Influence of beta-Cyclodextrins upon the Degradation of Carbofuran Derivatives under Alkaline Conditions" in the Journal of “Pesticides and Biofertilizers” to show that the cyclodextrins protect the carbamates increasing their half-life time in the presence of basic conditions This will be very helpful to understand carbofuran behaviour in the analytical, agro-environmental and food areas. We greatly appreciated the interaction with the editor and the editorial team; we were particularly well accompanied during the course of the revision process, since all various steps towards publication were short and without delay".
I would like to express my gratitude towards you process of article review and submission. I found this to be very fair and expedient. Your follow up has been excellent. I have many publications in national and international journal and your process has been one of the best so far. Keep up the great work.
We are grateful for this opportunity to provide a glowing recommendation to the Journal of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. We found that the editorial team were very supportive, helpful, kept us abreast of timelines and over all very professional in nature. The peer review process was rigorous, efficient and constructive that really enhanced our article submission. The experience with this journal remains one of our best ever and we look forward to providing future submissions in the near future.
I am very pleased to serve as EBM of the journal, I hope many years of my experience in stem cells can help the journal from one way or another. As we know, stem cells hold great potential for regenerative medicine, which are mostly used to promote the repair response of diseased, dysfunctional or injured tissue using stem cells or their derivatives. I think Stem Cell Research and Therapeutics International is a great platform to publish and share the understanding towards the biology and translational or clinical application of stem cells.
I would like to give my testimony in the support I have got by the peer review process and to support the editorial office where they were of asset to support young author like me to be encouraged to publish their work in your respected journal and globalize and share knowledge across the globe. I really give my great gratitude to your journal and the peer review including the editorial office.
I am delighted to publish our manuscript entitled "A Perspective on Cocaine Induced Stroke - Its Mechanisms and Management" in the Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. The peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal are excellent. The manuscripts published are of high quality and of excellent scientific value. I recommend this journal very much to colleagues.
Dr.Tania Muñoz, My experience as researcher and author of a review article in The Journal Clinical Cardiology and Interventions has been very enriching and stimulating. The editorial team is excellent, performs its work with absolute responsibility and delivery. They are proactive, dynamic and receptive to all proposals. Supporting at all times the vast universe of authors who choose them as an option for publication. The team of review specialists, members of the editorial board, are brilliant professionals, with remarkable performance in medical research and scientific methodology. Together they form a frontline team that consolidates the JCCI as a magnificent option for the publication and review of high-level medical articles and broad collective interest. I am honored to be able to share my review article and open to receive all your comments.
“The peer review process of JPMHC is quick and effective. Authors are benefited by good and professional reviewers with huge experience in the field of psychology and mental health. The support from the editorial office is very professional. People to contact to are friendly and happy to help and assist any query authors might have. Quality of the Journal is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on mental health that is useful for other professionals in the field”.
Dear editorial department: On behalf of our team, I hereby certify the reliability and superiority of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews in the peer review process, editorial support, and journal quality. Firstly, the peer review process of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is rigorous, fair, transparent, fast, and of high quality. The editorial department invites experts from relevant fields as anonymous reviewers to review all submitted manuscripts. These experts have rich academic backgrounds and experience, and can accurately evaluate the academic quality, originality, and suitability of manuscripts. The editorial department is committed to ensuring the rigor of the peer review process, while also making every effort to ensure a fast review cycle to meet the needs of authors and the academic community. Secondly, the editorial team of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is composed of a group of senior scholars and professionals with rich experience and professional knowledge in related fields. The editorial department is committed to assisting authors in improving their manuscripts, ensuring their academic accuracy, clarity, and completeness. Editors actively collaborate with authors, providing useful suggestions and feedback to promote the improvement and development of the manuscript. We believe that the support of the editorial department is one of the key factors in ensuring the quality of the journal. Finally, the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is renowned for its high- quality articles and strict academic standards. The editorial department is committed to publishing innovative and academically valuable research results to promote the development and progress of related fields. The International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is reasonably priced and ensures excellent service and quality ratio, allowing authors to obtain high-level academic publishing opportunities in an affordable manner. I hereby solemnly declare that the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews has a high level of credibility and superiority in terms of peer review process, editorial support, reasonable fees, and journal quality. Sincerely, Rui Tao.
