Vadim Sheiman MD, Aviv Frenkel MD, Noa Glick MD, Josef Tovbin MD, Ortal Neeman MD, Eran Barzilay MD, PhD
{"title":"超声波估算胎儿体重:一式三份的平均测量值比单次测量值更准确吗?","authors":"Vadim Sheiman MD, Aviv Frenkel MD, Noa Glick MD, Josef Tovbin MD, Ortal Neeman MD, Eran Barzilay MD, PhD","doi":"10.1002/jum.16545","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To assess whether, and to what extent, performing triplicate measurements can improve accuracy of estimation of fetal weight (EFW) compared to single measurements.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This was a prospective study conducted at a single medical center. A total of 100 term parturients with an anticipated delivery within 72 hours were recruited for EFW measurements. All examinations were done with adherence to the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG) guidelines. EFW was calculated using the Hadlock formula. Triplicate measurements from three different images were obtained for each parameter and the averaged values were used for clinical purposes. EFW calculated using average measurements was compared to EFW calculated using the first measurements.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>There was a small but significant improvement in EFW when using averaged measurements compared to single measurements (mean improvement 34 ± 105 g, <i>P</i> = .002). Deviance from birthweight in single measurements was significantly higher compared to averaged measurements (median deviance 198 versus 148 g, respectively, <i>P</i> = .005). This difference was more pronounced when assessing the 75th centile (348 versus 282 g, respectively).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Using triplicate measurements instead of single measurements when performing EFW confers a small, but statistically significant, improvement to EFW accuracy. Using triplicate measurements for assessing EFW should be thus considered, especially in cases suspected of growth disorders.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":17563,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine","volume":"43 11","pages":"2147-2152"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jum.16545","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ultrasonic Estimation of Fetal Weight: Are Averaged Triplicate Measurements More Accurate Than Single Measurements?\",\"authors\":\"Vadim Sheiman MD, Aviv Frenkel MD, Noa Glick MD, Josef Tovbin MD, Ortal Neeman MD, Eran Barzilay MD, PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jum.16545\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objective</h3>\\n \\n <p>To assess whether, and to what extent, performing triplicate measurements can improve accuracy of estimation of fetal weight (EFW) compared to single measurements.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>This was a prospective study conducted at a single medical center. A total of 100 term parturients with an anticipated delivery within 72 hours were recruited for EFW measurements. All examinations were done with adherence to the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG) guidelines. EFW was calculated using the Hadlock formula. Triplicate measurements from three different images were obtained for each parameter and the averaged values were used for clinical purposes. EFW calculated using average measurements was compared to EFW calculated using the first measurements.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>There was a small but significant improvement in EFW when using averaged measurements compared to single measurements (mean improvement 34 ± 105 g, <i>P</i> = .002). Deviance from birthweight in single measurements was significantly higher compared to averaged measurements (median deviance 198 versus 148 g, respectively, <i>P</i> = .005). This difference was more pronounced when assessing the 75th centile (348 versus 282 g, respectively).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Using triplicate measurements instead of single measurements when performing EFW confers a small, but statistically significant, improvement to EFW accuracy. Using triplicate measurements for assessing EFW should be thus considered, especially in cases suspected of growth disorders.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17563,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine\",\"volume\":\"43 11\",\"pages\":\"2147-2152\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jum.16545\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jum.16545\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ACOUSTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jum.16545","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ACOUSTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Ultrasonic Estimation of Fetal Weight: Are Averaged Triplicate Measurements More Accurate Than Single Measurements?
Objective
To assess whether, and to what extent, performing triplicate measurements can improve accuracy of estimation of fetal weight (EFW) compared to single measurements.
Methods
This was a prospective study conducted at a single medical center. A total of 100 term parturients with an anticipated delivery within 72 hours were recruited for EFW measurements. All examinations were done with adherence to the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG) guidelines. EFW was calculated using the Hadlock formula. Triplicate measurements from three different images were obtained for each parameter and the averaged values were used for clinical purposes. EFW calculated using average measurements was compared to EFW calculated using the first measurements.
Results
There was a small but significant improvement in EFW when using averaged measurements compared to single measurements (mean improvement 34 ± 105 g, P = .002). Deviance from birthweight in single measurements was significantly higher compared to averaged measurements (median deviance 198 versus 148 g, respectively, P = .005). This difference was more pronounced when assessing the 75th centile (348 versus 282 g, respectively).
Conclusions
Using triplicate measurements instead of single measurements when performing EFW confers a small, but statistically significant, improvement to EFW accuracy. Using triplicate measurements for assessing EFW should be thus considered, especially in cases suspected of growth disorders.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine (JUM) is dedicated to the rapid, accurate publication of original articles dealing with all aspects of medical ultrasound, particularly its direct application to patient care but also relevant basic science, advances in instrumentation, and biological effects. The journal is an official publication of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine and publishes articles in a variety of categories, including Original Research papers, Review Articles, Pictorial Essays, Technical Innovations, Case Series, Letters to the Editor, and more, from an international bevy of countries in a continual effort to showcase and promote advances in the ultrasound community.
Represented through these efforts are a wide variety of disciplines of ultrasound, including, but not limited to:
-Basic Science-
Breast Ultrasound-
Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound-
Dermatology-
Echocardiography-
Elastography-
Emergency Medicine-
Fetal Echocardiography-
Gastrointestinal Ultrasound-
General and Abdominal Ultrasound-
Genitourinary Ultrasound-
Gynecologic Ultrasound-
Head and Neck Ultrasound-
High Frequency Clinical and Preclinical Imaging-
Interventional-Intraoperative Ultrasound-
Musculoskeletal Ultrasound-
Neurosonology-
Obstetric Ultrasound-
Ophthalmologic Ultrasound-
Pediatric Ultrasound-
Point-of-Care Ultrasound-
Public Policy-
Superficial Structures-
Therapeutic Ultrasound-
Ultrasound Education-
Ultrasound in Global Health-
Urologic Ultrasound-
Vascular Ultrasound