A Longitudinal Study on Fetal Weight Estimation at Third Trimester of Pregnancy: Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and 2-D Ultrasound Predictions

Objective: To prospectively compare magnetic resonance (MR) estimation of fetal weight (MR-EFW) performed at third trimester with ultrasound (US) estimation of fetal weight (US-EFW) and actual birth weight, and to evaluate factors influencing fetal growth rate near term. Methods: US-EFW and MR-EFW w...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Fetal diagnosis and therapy 2017-10, Vol.42 (3), p.181-188
Hauptverfasser: Kadji, Caroline, Cannie, Mieke M., Van Wettere, Morgane, Bevilacqua, Elisa, Dütemeyer, Vivien, Strizek, Brigitte, Khalifé, Joe, Kang, Xin, Jani, Jacques C.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 188
container_issue 3
container_start_page 181
container_title Fetal diagnosis and therapy
container_volume 42
creator Kadji, Caroline
Cannie, Mieke M.
Van Wettere, Morgane
Bevilacqua, Elisa
Dütemeyer, Vivien
Strizek, Brigitte
Khalifé, Joe
Kang, Xin
Jani, Jacques C.
description Objective: To prospectively compare magnetic resonance (MR) estimation of fetal weight (MR-EFW) performed at third trimester with ultrasound (US) estimation of fetal weight (US-EFW) and actual birth weight, and to evaluate factors influencing fetal growth rate near term. Methods: US-EFW and MR-EFW were calculated at a median of 33.0 and 37.7 weeks of gestation in 37 fetuses and plotted on curve centiles to predict birth weights at 39.3 weeks of gestation. The median absolute relative errors for predicted US-EFW and MR-EFW were calculated. Regression analysis was used to investigate the effect of different variables on fetal growth rate at 35.2 weeks of gestation. Results: The relative error of actual birth weight as predicted by US at 33.0 weeks was significantly higher compared with MR (7.33 vs. 4.11%; p = 0.001). This was also the case for fetal weight predicted by US at 37.7 weeks as compared with MR (6.63 vs. 2.60%; p < 0.01). Fetal growth rate was significantly and independently positively associated with the mother's weight and with gestational age at estimation (p < 0.05 for both variables). Conclusion: Fetal weight estimates predicted using MR at third trimester are better than those given by prenatal US. Fetal growth rate depends on fetal and maternal characteristics.
doi_str_mv 10.1159/000453356
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_gale_infotracacademiconefile_A581023946</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A581023946</galeid><sourcerecordid>A581023946</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c404t-cde1c2d9220117b871a8695956040bbb0e6d8dd5412456d92a61c425c4bf4ae53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpt0k-P1CAUAPDGaNx19eDdGBITo4euQIFSb5NxVzcZo9HZeGwovHbQFkagh_kmflwZZ5y4ieEAPH6P_0XxlOBLQnjzBmPMeFVxca84J4ySsmkEu5_bmPCyklV9VjyK8Xtmsq7Ew-KMSoZrUZHz4tcCrbwbbJqNdWpEX3Njh7xD15By9xvYYZPQVUx2UsnmuEpovbHBoHWwE8QEAfkefQ4wOOX07i1a-mmrgo3Z5oGPanCQrEZfIEeyAHQzqcG6ASlnEC3fodsxBRX9nLt5GmP1fp34uHjQqzHCk2N9UdxeX62XH8rVp_c3y8Wq1AyzVGoDRFPTUIoJqTtZEyVFwxsuMMNd12EQRhrDGaGMi-yUIJpRrlnXMwW8uiheHebdBv9zzgdqJxs1jKNy4OfYEimlkIximemLAx3UCK11vc8b13veLrgkmFYNE1ld_kflYmCy2jvobY7fSXj5T8IG1Jg20Y_zn2u4C18foA4-xgB9u81voMKuJbjdf4T29BGyfX481txNYE7y78tn8OwAfqgwQDiBY_5vOF60rg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1888684208</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Longitudinal Study on Fetal Weight Estimation at Third Trimester of Pregnancy: Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and 2-D Ultrasound Predictions</title><source>Karger Journal Archive Collection</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Karger Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Kadji, Caroline ; Cannie, Mieke M. ; Van Wettere, Morgane ; Bevilacqua, Elisa ; Dütemeyer, Vivien ; Strizek, Brigitte ; Khalifé, Joe ; Kang, Xin ; Jani, Jacques C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Kadji, Caroline ; Cannie, Mieke M. ; Van Wettere, Morgane ; Bevilacqua, Elisa ; Dütemeyer, Vivien ; Strizek, Brigitte ; Khalifé, Joe ; Kang, Xin ; Jani, Jacques C.</creatorcontrib><description>Objective: To prospectively compare magnetic resonance (MR) estimation of fetal weight (MR-EFW) performed at third trimester with ultrasound (US) estimation of fetal weight (US-EFW) and actual birth weight, and to evaluate factors influencing fetal growth rate near term. Methods: US-EFW and MR-EFW were calculated at a median of 33.0 and 37.7 weeks of gestation in 37 fetuses and plotted on curve centiles to predict birth weights at 39.3 weeks of gestation. The median absolute relative errors for predicted US-EFW and MR-EFW were calculated. Regression analysis was used to investigate the effect of different variables on fetal growth rate at 35.2 weeks of gestation. Results: The relative error of actual birth weight as predicted by US at 33.0 weeks was significantly higher compared with MR (7.33 vs. 4.11%; p = 0.001). This was also the case for fetal weight predicted by US at 37.7 weeks as compared with MR (6.63 vs. 2.60%; p &lt; 0.01). Fetal growth rate was significantly and independently positively associated with the mother's weight and with gestational age at estimation (p &lt; 0.05 for both variables). Conclusion: Fetal weight estimates predicted using MR at third trimester are better than those given by prenatal US. Fetal growth rate depends on fetal and maternal characteristics.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1015-3837</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1421-9964</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1159/000453356</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28407631</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Basel, Switzerland: S. Karger AG</publisher><subject>Birth Weight ; Body Weight ; Comparative analysis ; Diagnostic imaging ; Fetal Development ; Fetus - anatomy &amp; histology ; Fetus - diagnostic imaging ; Gestational Age ; Humans ; Longitudinal Studies ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Original Paper ; Pregnant women ; Regression analysis ; Ultrasonography, Prenatal</subject><ispartof>Fetal diagnosis and therapy, 2017-10, Vol.42 (3), p.181-188</ispartof><rights>2017 S. Karger AG, Basel</rights><rights>2017 S. Karger AG, Basel.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2017 S. Karger AG</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c404t-cde1c2d9220117b871a8695956040bbb0e6d8dd5412456d92a61c425c4bf4ae53</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,2429,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28407631$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kadji, Caroline</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cannie, Mieke M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Wettere, Morgane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bevilacqua, Elisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dütemeyer, Vivien</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Strizek, Brigitte</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khalifé, Joe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kang, Xin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jani, Jacques C.</creatorcontrib><title>A Longitudinal Study on Fetal Weight Estimation at Third Trimester of Pregnancy: Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and 2-D Ultrasound Predictions</title><title>Fetal diagnosis and therapy</title><addtitle>Fetal Diagn Ther</addtitle><description>Objective: To prospectively compare magnetic resonance (MR) estimation of fetal weight (MR-EFW) performed at third trimester with ultrasound (US) estimation of fetal weight (US-EFW) and actual birth weight, and to evaluate factors influencing fetal growth rate near term. Methods: US-EFW and MR-EFW were calculated at a median of 33.0 and 37.7 weeks of gestation in 37 fetuses and plotted on curve centiles to predict birth weights at 39.3 weeks of gestation. The median absolute relative errors for predicted US-EFW and MR-EFW were calculated. Regression analysis was used to investigate the effect of different variables on fetal growth rate at 35.2 weeks of gestation. Results: The relative error of actual birth weight as predicted by US at 33.0 weeks was significantly higher compared with MR (7.33 vs. 4.11%; p = 0.001). This was also the case for fetal weight predicted by US at 37.7 weeks as compared with MR (6.63 vs. 2.60%; p &lt; 0.01). Fetal growth rate was significantly and independently positively associated with the mother's weight and with gestational age at estimation (p &lt; 0.05 for both variables). Conclusion: Fetal weight estimates predicted using MR at third trimester are better than those given by prenatal US. Fetal growth rate depends on fetal and maternal characteristics.</description><subject>Birth Weight</subject><subject>Body Weight</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Fetal Development</subject><subject>Fetus - anatomy &amp; histology</subject><subject>Fetus - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Gestational Age</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Longitudinal Studies</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</subject><subject>Original Paper</subject><subject>Pregnant women</subject><subject>Regression analysis</subject><subject>Ultrasonography, Prenatal</subject><issn>1015-3837</issn><issn>1421-9964</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpt0k-P1CAUAPDGaNx19eDdGBITo4euQIFSb5NxVzcZo9HZeGwovHbQFkagh_kmflwZZ5y4ieEAPH6P_0XxlOBLQnjzBmPMeFVxca84J4ySsmkEu5_bmPCyklV9VjyK8Xtmsq7Ew-KMSoZrUZHz4tcCrbwbbJqNdWpEX3Njh7xD15By9xvYYZPQVUx2UsnmuEpovbHBoHWwE8QEAfkefQ4wOOX07i1a-mmrgo3Z5oGPanCQrEZfIEeyAHQzqcG6ASlnEC3fodsxBRX9nLt5GmP1fp34uHjQqzHCk2N9UdxeX62XH8rVp_c3y8Wq1AyzVGoDRFPTUIoJqTtZEyVFwxsuMMNd12EQRhrDGaGMi-yUIJpRrlnXMwW8uiheHebdBv9zzgdqJxs1jKNy4OfYEimlkIximemLAx3UCK11vc8b13veLrgkmFYNE1ld_kflYmCy2jvobY7fSXj5T8IG1Jg20Y_zn2u4C18foA4-xgB9u81voMKuJbjdf4T29BGyfX481txNYE7y78tn8OwAfqgwQDiBY_5vOF60rg</recordid><startdate>20171001</startdate><enddate>20171001</enddate><creator>Kadji, Caroline</creator><creator>Cannie, Mieke M.</creator><creator>Van Wettere, Morgane</creator><creator>Bevilacqua, Elisa</creator><creator>Dütemeyer, Vivien</creator><creator>Strizek, Brigitte</creator><creator>Khalifé, Joe</creator><creator>Kang, Xin</creator><creator>Jani, Jacques C.</creator><general>S. Karger AG</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20171001</creationdate><title>A Longitudinal Study on Fetal Weight Estimation at Third Trimester of Pregnancy: Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and 2-D Ultrasound Predictions</title><author>Kadji, Caroline ; Cannie, Mieke M. ; Van Wettere, Morgane ; Bevilacqua, Elisa ; Dütemeyer, Vivien ; Strizek, Brigitte ; Khalifé, Joe ; Kang, Xin ; Jani, Jacques C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c404t-cde1c2d9220117b871a8695956040bbb0e6d8dd5412456d92a61c425c4bf4ae53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Birth Weight</topic><topic>Body Weight</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Fetal Development</topic><topic>Fetus - anatomy &amp; histology</topic><topic>Fetus - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Gestational Age</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Longitudinal Studies</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</topic><topic>Original Paper</topic><topic>Pregnant women</topic><topic>Regression analysis</topic><topic>Ultrasonography, Prenatal</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kadji, Caroline</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cannie, Mieke M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Wettere, Morgane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bevilacqua, Elisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dütemeyer, Vivien</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Strizek, Brigitte</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khalifé, Joe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kang, Xin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jani, Jacques C.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Fetal diagnosis and therapy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kadji, Caroline</au><au>Cannie, Mieke M.</au><au>Van Wettere, Morgane</au><au>Bevilacqua, Elisa</au><au>Dütemeyer, Vivien</au><au>Strizek, Brigitte</au><au>Khalifé, Joe</au><au>Kang, Xin</au><au>Jani, Jacques C.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A Longitudinal Study on Fetal Weight Estimation at Third Trimester of Pregnancy: Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and 2-D Ultrasound Predictions</atitle><jtitle>Fetal diagnosis and therapy</jtitle><addtitle>Fetal Diagn Ther</addtitle><date>2017-10-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>42</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>181</spage><epage>188</epage><pages>181-188</pages><issn>1015-3837</issn><eissn>1421-9964</eissn><abstract>Objective: To prospectively compare magnetic resonance (MR) estimation of fetal weight (MR-EFW) performed at third trimester with ultrasound (US) estimation of fetal weight (US-EFW) and actual birth weight, and to evaluate factors influencing fetal growth rate near term. Methods: US-EFW and MR-EFW were calculated at a median of 33.0 and 37.7 weeks of gestation in 37 fetuses and plotted on curve centiles to predict birth weights at 39.3 weeks of gestation. The median absolute relative errors for predicted US-EFW and MR-EFW were calculated. Regression analysis was used to investigate the effect of different variables on fetal growth rate at 35.2 weeks of gestation. Results: The relative error of actual birth weight as predicted by US at 33.0 weeks was significantly higher compared with MR (7.33 vs. 4.11%; p = 0.001). This was also the case for fetal weight predicted by US at 37.7 weeks as compared with MR (6.63 vs. 2.60%; p &lt; 0.01). Fetal growth rate was significantly and independently positively associated with the mother's weight and with gestational age at estimation (p &lt; 0.05 for both variables). Conclusion: Fetal weight estimates predicted using MR at third trimester are better than those given by prenatal US. Fetal growth rate depends on fetal and maternal characteristics.</abstract><cop>Basel, Switzerland</cop><pub>S. Karger AG</pub><pmid>28407631</pmid><doi>10.1159/000453356</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1015-3837
ispartof Fetal diagnosis and therapy, 2017-10, Vol.42 (3), p.181-188
issn 1015-3837
1421-9964
language eng
recordid cdi_gale_infotracacademiconefile_A581023946
source Karger Journal Archive Collection; MEDLINE; Karger Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Birth Weight
Body Weight
Comparative analysis
Diagnostic imaging
Fetal Development
Fetus - anatomy & histology
Fetus - diagnostic imaging
Gestational Age
Humans
Longitudinal Studies
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Original Paper
Pregnant women
Regression analysis
Ultrasonography, Prenatal
title A Longitudinal Study on Fetal Weight Estimation at Third Trimester of Pregnancy: Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and 2-D Ultrasound Predictions
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-21T01%3A15%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Longitudinal%20Study%20on%20Fetal%20Weight%20Estimation%20at%20Third%20Trimester%20of%20Pregnancy:%20Comparison%20of%20Magnetic%20Resonance%20Imaging%20and%202-D%20Ultrasound%20Predictions&rft.jtitle=Fetal%20diagnosis%20and%20therapy&rft.au=Kadji,%20Caroline&rft.date=2017-10-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=181&rft.epage=188&rft.pages=181-188&rft.issn=1015-3837&rft.eissn=1421-9964&rft_id=info:doi/10.1159/000453356&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA581023946%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1888684208&rft_id=info:pmid/28407631&rft_galeid=A581023946&rfr_iscdi=true