超早产儿(≤32 周)超声胎儿体重的准确性

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Inshirah Sgayer , Tala Barbara , Asal Darwish , Ala Aiob , Lior Lowenstein , Maya Frank Wolf , Marwan Odeh
{"title":"超早产儿(≤32 周)超声胎儿体重的准确性","authors":"Inshirah Sgayer ,&nbsp;Tala Barbara ,&nbsp;Asal Darwish ,&nbsp;Ala Aiob ,&nbsp;Lior Lowenstein ,&nbsp;Maya Frank Wolf ,&nbsp;Marwan Odeh","doi":"10.1016/j.jogoh.2024.102785","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To examine the accuracy of sonographic fetal weight to predict birthweight in very preterm infants (&lt;32 weeks), and to compare the accuracy of estimated fetal weight (EFW) between those small for gestational age (SGA) and those appropriate for gestational age (AGA).</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>A retrospective study was conducted of data recorded between January 2010 and March 2023. Included were women with singleton livebirths at 23+0–31+6 weeks who had an EFW within one week from delivery. Mean percentage error, mean absolute percentage error, and underestimation and overestimation rates were calculated. We compared the accuracy of EFW between SGA and AGA infants.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In total, 360 women were included. The mean absolute percentage error was 7.8 % (range 0 %<strong>–</strong>68.9 %); for 207 (57.5 %) infants the percentage error was within ±10 %. Overestimation error &gt;10 % was observed in 102 (28.3 %) infants and errors &gt;20 % in 34 (9.4 %). Among infants born in the periviable period (23+0 – 25+6 weeks; <em>N</em> = 56), the mean absolute percentage error was 9.8 % (range: 0 %<strong>–</strong>40.3 %); the value was within ±10 % for only 28 periviable infants (50 %) and exceeded 20 % for 16.1 %. Among SGA compared to AGA infants, the mean absolute percentage error was higher (11.1% vs. 6.6 %, <em>p</em> = 0.035). Overestimation error &gt;10 % was more frequent among SGA than AGA infants (55 (49.1 %) vs. 47 (19.0 %), <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001). In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, SGA status was independently associated with a higher mean percentage error (beta = 0.260, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001) and an increased risk of an error &gt;10 % (odds ratio = 2.1, 95 % confidence interval 1.2<strong>–</strong>3.5, <em>p</em> = 0.008).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Sonographic EFW is limited in assessing very preterm infants, particularly those who are SGA or born during the periviable period. These limitations should be considered regarding impending very preterm births and concerns about abnormal fetal growth.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":15871,"journal":{"name":"Journal of gynecology obstetrics and human reproduction","volume":"53 7","pages":"Article 102785"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The accuracy of sonographic fetal weight in very preterm infants (≤32 weeks)\",\"authors\":\"Inshirah Sgayer ,&nbsp;Tala Barbara ,&nbsp;Asal Darwish ,&nbsp;Ala Aiob ,&nbsp;Lior Lowenstein ,&nbsp;Maya Frank Wolf ,&nbsp;Marwan Odeh\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jogoh.2024.102785\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To examine the accuracy of sonographic fetal weight to predict birthweight in very preterm infants (&lt;32 weeks), and to compare the accuracy of estimated fetal weight (EFW) between those small for gestational age (SGA) and those appropriate for gestational age (AGA).</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>A retrospective study was conducted of data recorded between January 2010 and March 2023. Included were women with singleton livebirths at 23+0–31+6 weeks who had an EFW within one week from delivery. Mean percentage error, mean absolute percentage error, and underestimation and overestimation rates were calculated. We compared the accuracy of EFW between SGA and AGA infants.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In total, 360 women were included. The mean absolute percentage error was 7.8 % (range 0 %<strong>–</strong>68.9 %); for 207 (57.5 %) infants the percentage error was within ±10 %. Overestimation error &gt;10 % was observed in 102 (28.3 %) infants and errors &gt;20 % in 34 (9.4 %). Among infants born in the periviable period (23+0 – 25+6 weeks; <em>N</em> = 56), the mean absolute percentage error was 9.8 % (range: 0 %<strong>–</strong>40.3 %); the value was within ±10 % for only 28 periviable infants (50 %) and exceeded 20 % for 16.1 %. Among SGA compared to AGA infants, the mean absolute percentage error was higher (11.1% vs. 6.6 %, <em>p</em> = 0.035). Overestimation error &gt;10 % was more frequent among SGA than AGA infants (55 (49.1 %) vs. 47 (19.0 %), <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001). In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, SGA status was independently associated with a higher mean percentage error (beta = 0.260, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001) and an increased risk of an error &gt;10 % (odds ratio = 2.1, 95 % confidence interval 1.2<strong>–</strong>3.5, <em>p</em> = 0.008).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Sonographic EFW is limited in assessing very preterm infants, particularly those who are SGA or born during the periviable period. These limitations should be considered regarding impending very preterm births and concerns about abnormal fetal growth.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15871,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of gynecology obstetrics and human reproduction\",\"volume\":\"53 7\",\"pages\":\"Article 102785\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of gynecology obstetrics and human reproduction\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468784724000631\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of gynecology obstetrics and human reproduction","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468784724000631","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究设计对2010年1月至2023年3月期间记录的数据进行了回顾性研究。研究对象包括分娩周数为 23+0-31+6 周且在分娩后一周内进行过 EFW 检查的单胎活产产妇。我们计算了平均百分比误差、平均绝对百分比误差、低估率和高估率。我们比较了SGA和AGA婴儿的EFW准确性。平均绝对百分比误差为 7.8%(范围 0%-68.9%);207 名婴儿(57.5%)的百分比误差在 ±10% 以内。102名婴儿(28.3%)的高估误差为10%,34名婴儿(9.4%)的高估误差为20%。在围产期(23+0 - 25+6 周;N = 56)出生的婴儿中,平均绝对百分比误差为 9.8%(范围:0%-40.3%);只有 28 名围产期婴儿(50%)的误差值在 ±10% 以内,16.1% 的婴儿误差超过 20%。与 AGA 婴儿相比,SGA 婴儿的平均绝对百分比误差更高(11.1% 对 6.6%,p = 0.035)。SGA婴儿比AGA婴儿的高估误差>10%更常见(55 (49.1 %) vs. 47 (19.0 %),p <0.001)。在多变量逻辑回归分析中,SGA 状态与更高的平均百分比误差(β = 0.260,p <0.001)和更高的误差风险 >10%(几率比 = 2.1,95 % 置信区间 1.2-3.5,p = 0.008)独立相关。对于即将出生的极早产儿和对胎儿发育异常的担忧,应考虑到这些局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The accuracy of sonographic fetal weight in very preterm infants (≤32 weeks)

Objective

To examine the accuracy of sonographic fetal weight to predict birthweight in very preterm infants (<32 weeks), and to compare the accuracy of estimated fetal weight (EFW) between those small for gestational age (SGA) and those appropriate for gestational age (AGA).

Study design

A retrospective study was conducted of data recorded between January 2010 and March 2023. Included were women with singleton livebirths at 23+0–31+6 weeks who had an EFW within one week from delivery. Mean percentage error, mean absolute percentage error, and underestimation and overestimation rates were calculated. We compared the accuracy of EFW between SGA and AGA infants.

Results

In total, 360 women were included. The mean absolute percentage error was 7.8 % (range 0 %68.9 %); for 207 (57.5 %) infants the percentage error was within ±10 %. Overestimation error >10 % was observed in 102 (28.3 %) infants and errors >20 % in 34 (9.4 %). Among infants born in the periviable period (23+0 – 25+6 weeks; N = 56), the mean absolute percentage error was 9.8 % (range: 0 %40.3 %); the value was within ±10 % for only 28 periviable infants (50 %) and exceeded 20 % for 16.1 %. Among SGA compared to AGA infants, the mean absolute percentage error was higher (11.1% vs. 6.6 %, p = 0.035). Overestimation error >10 % was more frequent among SGA than AGA infants (55 (49.1 %) vs. 47 (19.0 %), p < 0.001). In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, SGA status was independently associated with a higher mean percentage error (beta = 0.260, p < 0.001) and an increased risk of an error >10 % (odds ratio = 2.1, 95 % confidence interval 1.23.5, p = 0.008).

Conclusions

Sonographic EFW is limited in assessing very preterm infants, particularly those who are SGA or born during the periviable period. These limitations should be considered regarding impending very preterm births and concerns about abnormal fetal growth.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of gynecology obstetrics and human reproduction
Journal of gynecology obstetrics and human reproduction Medicine-Obstetrics and Gynecology
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.30%
发文量
210
审稿时长
31 days
期刊介绍: Formerly known as Journal de Gynécologie Obstétrique et Biologie de la Reproduction, Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics and Human Reproduction is the official Academic publication of the French College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (Collège National des Gynécologues et Obstétriciens Français / CNGOF). J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod publishes monthly, in English, research papers and techniques in the fields of Gynecology, Obstetrics, Neonatology and Human Reproduction: (guest) editorials, original articles, reviews, updates, technical notes, case reports, letters to the editor and guidelines. Original works include clinical or laboratory investigations and clinical or equipment reports. Reviews include narrative reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信