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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Fetal diagnosis and therapy 2017-10, Vol.42 (3), p.181-188 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
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 < 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.</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 & 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 < 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.</description><subject>Birth Weight</subject><subject>Body Weight</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Fetal Development</subject><subject>Fetus - anatomy & 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 & 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 < 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.</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 |