Diagnostic value of sonographic fetal anthropometries and anthropometric formulas to identify macrosomia: a meta-analysis.

IF 1 Q2 Medicine

Minerva ginecologica Pub Date : 2020-06-01 Epub Date: 2020-04-21 DOI:10.23736/S0026-4784.20.04535-9

Eita Goto

{"title":"Diagnostic value of sonographic fetal anthropometries and anthropometric formulas to identify macrosomia: a meta-analysis.","authors":"Eita Goto","doi":"10.23736/S0026-4784.20.04535-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: This study evaluated whether sonographic fetal anthropometries and anthropometric formulas can identify macrosomia, with increases in mortality and morbidity rates in infanthood and probably later in life.Evidence acquisition: Meta-analysis including good-quality studies determined summarized sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios (PLR and NLR, respectively) and area under the curve (AUC). PLR and NLR divided informational usability into exclusion and confirmation strategies (10<PLR and NLR<0.1), confirmation strategies only (10<PLR and NLR>0.1), exclusion strategies only (10>PLR and NLR<0.1), or neither exclusion nor confirmation strategies (10>PLR and NLR>0.1). Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were performed.Evidence synthesis: Abdominal circumference showed moderately high sensitivity and moderately high specificity (N.=4). However, informational usability classified it as a neither exclusion nor confirmation strategy. Anthropometric formulas showed high specificity (N.=21). However, use of anthropometric formulas showed low sensitivity, and informational usability classified it as a neither exclusion nor confirmation strategy. On the other hand, limiting to Hadlock IV (1985) formula changed this to a confirmation strategy only (N.=7). Hadlock IV (1985) formula versus other formulas may have been a true confounder.Conclusions: Abdominal circumference and varying anthropometric formulas are not highly useful for identification of macrosomia. However, Hadlock IV (1985) formula may be useful for secondary screening of macrosomia.","PeriodicalId":18745,"journal":{"name":"Minerva ginecologica","volume":"72 3","pages":"157-164"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva ginecologica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0026-4784.20.04535-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/4/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: This study evaluated whether sonographic fetal anthropometries and anthropometric formulas can identify macrosomia, with increases in mortality and morbidity rates in infanthood and probably later in life.

Evidence acquisition: Meta-analysis including good-quality studies determined summarized sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios (PLR and NLR, respectively) and area under the curve (AUC). PLR and NLR divided informational usability into exclusion and confirmation strategies (100.1), exclusion strategies only (10>PLR and NLR<0.1), or neither exclusion nor confirmation strategies (10>PLR and NLR>0.1). Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were performed.

Evidence synthesis: Abdominal circumference showed moderately high sensitivity and moderately high specificity (N.=4). However, informational usability classified it as a neither exclusion nor confirmation strategy. Anthropometric formulas showed high specificity (N.=21). However, use of anthropometric formulas showed low sensitivity, and informational usability classified it as a neither exclusion nor confirmation strategy. On the other hand, limiting to Hadlock IV (1985) formula changed this to a confirmation strategy only (N.=7). Hadlock IV (1985) formula versus other formulas may have been a true confounder.

Conclusions: Abdominal circumference and varying anthropometric formulas are not highly useful for identification of macrosomia. However, Hadlock IV (1985) formula may be useful for secondary screening of macrosomia.

查看原文本刊更多论文

超声胎儿人体测量和人体测量公式识别巨大儿的诊断价值:荟萃分析。

本研究评估了超声胎儿人体测量和人体测量公式是否可以识别巨大儿，在婴儿期和可能以后的生活中死亡率和发病率增加。证据获取:包括高质量研究在内的荟萃分析确定了总结的敏感性、特异性、阳性和阴性似然比(分别为PLR和NLR)和曲线下面积(AUC)。PLR和NLR将信息可用性分为排除和确认策略(100.1)、排除策略(10>PLR、NLRPLR和NLR>0.1)。进行亚组和元回归分析。证据综合:腹围显示中高敏感性和中高特异性(n =4)。然而，信息可用性将其归类为既不排除也不确认的策略。人体测量公式显示高特异性(n =21)。然而，人体测量公式的使用显示出较低的敏感性，信息可用性将其归类为既不排除也不确认的策略。另一方面，限制于Hadlock IV(1985)公式将其更改为仅确认策略(n =7)。Hadlock IV(1985)公式与其他公式的对比可能是一个真正的混淆。结论:腹围和不同的人体测量公式对巨大儿的鉴别不是很有用。然而，Hadlock IV(1985)公式可能对巨大儿的二次筛查有用。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Minerva ginecologica OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-

CiteScore

3.00

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The journal Minerva Ginecologica publishes scientific papers on obstetrics and gynecology. Manuscripts may be submitted in the form of editorials, original articles, review articles, case reports, therapeutical notes, special articles and letters to the Editor. Manuscripts are expected to comply with the instructions to authors which conform to the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Editors by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (www.icmje.org). Articles not conforming to international standards will not be considered for acceptance.