Micah Martin Vaughn-Valencia, Yan D Zhao, Rodney K Edwards, Shari Clifton, Hugh Nadeau
{"title":"使用妊娠调整投影法进行妊娠晚期超声检查后的胎儿体重推断:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Micah Martin Vaughn-Valencia, Yan D Zhao, Rodney K Edwards, Shari Clifton, Hugh Nadeau","doi":"10.1055/a-2628-2364","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Objective Using systematic review and meta-analysis methodology, we sought to evaluate the accuracy of the gestation-adjusted projection (GAP) method of fetal weight extrapolation in the prediction of actual birth weight. Study Design A systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies published from database inception to June 2023. Studies were compiled that assessed accuracy of the GAP method in pregnant women at term (≥37 weeks' gestation) with an ultrasound performed at 34 to 36 weeks' gestation. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the agreement between the GAP method and the actual birth weight using the mean percent error, mean absolute error, and mean absolute percent error. Means and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using I<sup>2</sup> and tau<sup>2</sup> statistics. Results The search identified 949 records. After full text review, a total of eight studies with 5306 subjects were included. Studies were retrospective and prospective cohort studies. All studies were deemed high quality and determined to have a low risk of bias. Five studies were performed in the United States, one in Italy, one in Spain, and one in the United Kingdom. Four studies included patients with pregestational or gestational diabetes and obesity. Due to substantial heterogeneity, the random-effects model was used to estimate the effects of studies. The mean percent error was 3.1% (95% CI: 1.1-5.2%), the mean absolute error was 240 g (95% CI: 205-275 g), and the mean absolute percent error was 8.0% (95% CI: 6.9-9.1%). Conclusion The GAP method of fetal weight extrapolation is an accurate approach to birth weight prediction and is suitable for use in a diverse population.</p>","PeriodicalId":7584,"journal":{"name":"American journal of perinatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fetal weight extrapolation following a third-trimester ultrasound examination using the gestation-adjusted projection method: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Micah Martin Vaughn-Valencia, Yan D Zhao, Rodney K Edwards, Shari Clifton, Hugh Nadeau\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-2628-2364\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Objective Using systematic review and meta-analysis methodology, we sought to evaluate the accuracy of the gestation-adjusted projection (GAP) method of fetal weight extrapolation in the prediction of actual birth weight. Study Design A systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies published from database inception to June 2023. Studies were compiled that assessed accuracy of the GAP method in pregnant women at term (≥37 weeks' gestation) with an ultrasound performed at 34 to 36 weeks' gestation. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the agreement between the GAP method and the actual birth weight using the mean percent error, mean absolute error, and mean absolute percent error. Means and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using I<sup>2</sup> and tau<sup>2</sup> statistics. Results The search identified 949 records. After full text review, a total of eight studies with 5306 subjects were included. Studies were retrospective and prospective cohort studies. All studies were deemed high quality and determined to have a low risk of bias. Five studies were performed in the United States, one in Italy, one in Spain, and one in the United Kingdom. Four studies included patients with pregestational or gestational diabetes and obesity. Due to substantial heterogeneity, the random-effects model was used to estimate the effects of studies. The mean percent error was 3.1% (95% CI: 1.1-5.2%), the mean absolute error was 240 g (95% CI: 205-275 g), and the mean absolute percent error was 8.0% (95% CI: 6.9-9.1%). Conclusion The GAP method of fetal weight extrapolation is an accurate approach to birth weight prediction and is suitable for use in a diverse population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7584,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of perinatology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of perinatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2628-2364\",\"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":"American journal of perinatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2628-2364","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Fetal weight extrapolation following a third-trimester ultrasound examination using the gestation-adjusted projection method: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Objective Using systematic review and meta-analysis methodology, we sought to evaluate the accuracy of the gestation-adjusted projection (GAP) method of fetal weight extrapolation in the prediction of actual birth weight. Study Design A systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies published from database inception to June 2023. Studies were compiled that assessed accuracy of the GAP method in pregnant women at term (≥37 weeks' gestation) with an ultrasound performed at 34 to 36 weeks' gestation. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the agreement between the GAP method and the actual birth weight using the mean percent error, mean absolute error, and mean absolute percent error. Means and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using I2 and tau2 statistics. Results The search identified 949 records. After full text review, a total of eight studies with 5306 subjects were included. Studies were retrospective and prospective cohort studies. All studies were deemed high quality and determined to have a low risk of bias. Five studies were performed in the United States, one in Italy, one in Spain, and one in the United Kingdom. Four studies included patients with pregestational or gestational diabetes and obesity. Due to substantial heterogeneity, the random-effects model was used to estimate the effects of studies. The mean percent error was 3.1% (95% CI: 1.1-5.2%), the mean absolute error was 240 g (95% CI: 205-275 g), and the mean absolute percent error was 8.0% (95% CI: 6.9-9.1%). Conclusion The GAP method of fetal weight extrapolation is an accurate approach to birth weight prediction and is suitable for use in a diverse population.
期刊介绍:
The American Journal of Perinatology is an international, peer-reviewed, and indexed journal publishing 14 issues a year dealing with original research and topical reviews. It is the definitive forum for specialists in obstetrics, neonatology, perinatology, and maternal/fetal medicine, with emphasis on bridging the different fields.
The focus is primarily on clinical and translational research, clinical and technical advances in diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment as well as evidence-based reviews. Topics of interest include epidemiology, diagnosis, prevention, and management of maternal, fetal, and neonatal diseases. Manuscripts on new technology, NICU set-ups, and nursing topics are published to provide a broad survey of important issues in this field.
All articles undergo rigorous peer review, with web-based submission, expedited turn-around, and availability of electronic publication.
The American Journal of Perinatology is accompanied by AJP Reports - an Open Access journal for case reports in neonatology and maternal/fetal medicine.