American journal of obstetrics & gynecology MFM · 2023
The impact of different growth charts on birthweight prediction: obstetrical ultrasound vs magnetic resonance imaging.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Badr Dominique A, Cannie Mieke M, Kadji Caroline, Kang Xin, Carlin Andrew, Jani Jacques C
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The estimation of fetal weight by fetal magnetic resonance imaging is a simple and rapid method with a high sensitivity in predicting birthweight in comparison with ultrasound. Several national and international growth charts are currently in use, but there is substantial heterogeneity among these charts due to variations in the selected populations from which they were derived, in methodologies, and in statistical analysis of data.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the performance of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound for the prediction of birthweight using 3 commonly used fetal growth charts: the INTERGROWTH-21st Project, World Health Organization, and Fetal Medicine Foundation charts.
STUDY DESIGN: Data derived from a prospective, single-center, blinded cohort study that compared the performance of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound between 36+0/7 and 36+6/7 weeks of gestation for the prediction of birthweight ≥95th percentile were reanalyzed. Estimated fetal weight was categorized as above or below the 5th, 10th, 90th, and 95th percentile according to the 3 growth charts. Birthweight was similarly categorized according to the birthweight standards of each chart. The performances of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging for the prediction of birthweight <5th, <10th, >90th, and >95th percentile using the different growth charts were compared. Data were analyzed with R software, version 4.1.2. The comparison of sensitivity and specificity was done using McNemar and exact binomial tests. P values <.05 were considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: A total of 2378 women were eligible for final analysis. Ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging were performed at a median gestational age of 36+3/7 weeks, delivery occurred at a median gestational age of 39+3/7 weeks, and median birthweight was 3380 g. The incidences of birthweight <5th and <10th percentiles were highest with the Fetal Medicine Foundation chart and lowest with the INTERGROWTH-21st chart, whereas the incidences of birthweight >90th and >95th percentiles were lowest with the Fetal Medicine Foundation chart and highest with the INTERGROWTH-21st chart. The sensitivity of magnetic resonance imaging with an estimated fetal weight >95th percentile in the prediction of birthweight >95th percentile was significantly higher than that of ultrasound across the 3 growth charts; however, its specificity was slightly lower than that of ultrasound. In contrast, the sensitivity of magnetic resonance imaging with an estimated fetal weight <10th percentile for predicting birthweight <10th percentile was significantly lower than that of ultrasound in the INTERGROWTH-21st and Fetal Medicine Foundation charts, whereas the specificity and positive predictive value of magnetic resonance imaging were significantly higher than those of ultrasound for all 3 charts. Findings for the prediction of birthweight >90th percentile were close to those of birthweight >95th percentile, and findings for the prediction of birthweight <5th percentile were close to those of birthweight <10th percentile.
CONCLUSION: The sensitivity of magnetic resonance imaging is superior to that of ultrasound for the prediction of large for gestational age fetuses and inferior to that of ultrasound for the prediction of small for gestational age fetuses across the 3 different growth charts. The reverse is true for the specificity of magnetic resonance imaging in comparison with that of ultrasound.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the performance of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound for the prediction of birthweight using 3 commonly used fetal growth charts: the INTERGROWTH-21st Project, World Health Organization, and Fetal Medicine Foundation charts.
STUDY DESIGN: Data derived from a prospective, single-center, blinded cohort study that compared the performance of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound between 36+0/7 and 36+6/7 weeks of gestation for the prediction of birthweight ≥95th percentile were reanalyzed. Estimated fetal weight was categorized as above or below the 5th, 10th, 90th, and 95th percentile according to the 3 growth charts. Birthweight was similarly categorized according to the birthweight standards of each chart. The performances of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging for the prediction of birthweight <5th, <10th, >90th, and >95th percentile using the different growth charts were compared. Data were analyzed with R software, version 4.1.2. The comparison of sensitivity and specificity was done using McNemar and exact binomial tests. P values <.05 were considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: A total of 2378 women were eligible for final analysis. Ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging were performed at a median gestational age of 36+3/7 weeks, delivery occurred at a median gestational age of 39+3/7 weeks, and median birthweight was 3380 g. The incidences of birthweight <5th and <10th percentiles were highest with the Fetal Medicine Foundation chart and lowest with the INTERGROWTH-21st chart, whereas the incidences of birthweight >90th and >95th percentiles were lowest with the Fetal Medicine Foundation chart and highest with the INTERGROWTH-21st chart. The sensitivity of magnetic resonance imaging with an estimated fetal weight >95th percentile in the prediction of birthweight >95th percentile was significantly higher than that of ultrasound across the 3 growth charts; however, its specificity was slightly lower than that of ultrasound. In contrast, the sensitivity of magnetic resonance imaging with an estimated fetal weight <10th percentile for predicting birthweight <10th percentile was significantly lower than that of ultrasound in the INTERGROWTH-21st and Fetal Medicine Foundation charts, whereas the specificity and positive predictive value of magnetic resonance imaging were significantly higher than those of ultrasound for all 3 charts. Findings for the prediction of birthweight >90th percentile were close to those of birthweight >95th percentile, and findings for the prediction of birthweight <5th percentile were close to those of birthweight <10th percentile.
CONCLUSION: The sensitivity of magnetic resonance imaging is superior to that of ultrasound for the prediction of large for gestational age fetuses and inferior to that of ultrasound for the prediction of small for gestational age fetuses across the 3 different growth charts. The reverse is true for the specificity of magnetic resonance imaging in comparison with that of ultrasound.