PFM.48 Comparison of MRI and ultrasound to detect fetal macrosomia at term: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (9th June 2014)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- PFM.48 Comparison of MRI and ultrasound to detect fetal macrosomia at term: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (9th June 2014)
- Main Title:
- PFM.48 Comparison of MRI and ultrasound to detect fetal macrosomia at term: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Authors:
- Malin, GL
Bugg, GJ
Takwoingi, Y
Thornton, J
Jones, NW - Abstract:
- Abstract : Background: Fetal macrosomia is associated with a number of complications, including shoulder dystocia and maternal and fetal birth trauma. Two dimensional ultrasound biometry has been shown to be inaccurate in diagnosing macrosomia. We performed a systematic review to compare 2D ultrasound with 3D and MRI methods. Methods: Systematic review of the literature, with bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity, specificity and positive (LR +ve) and negative likelihood ratios (LR-ve), with 95% confidence intervals (CI), for macrosomia. Results: 46 studies were included. 25 studies (20591 women) used estimated fetal weight (EFW) calculated with the Hadlock formula. Using any definition of macrosomia, this gave a sensitivity of 0.58 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.63) and specificity of 0.93 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.94), LR +ve 7.86 (6.17 to 10.02) and LR-ve 0.45 (0.41 to 0.49). 8 studies (4546 women) used Hadlock EFW > 90 th centile to predict birth weight > 90 th centile; the sensitivity was 0.49 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.59), and specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.95). 3 studies (117 women) used MRI EFW > 90 th centile to predict birth weight > 90 th centile with summary sensitivity 0.82 (95% CI: 0.60 to 0.95) and specificity 0.98 (0.92 to 1.00). One study (200 women) used 3D ultrasound volumetry to predict macrosomia, with a sensitivity of 0.42 and specificity 0.98. Conclusion: MRI appears to be more accurate than 2D or 3D ultrasound for detection of fetal macrosomia, but this is based onAbstract : Background: Fetal macrosomia is associated with a number of complications, including shoulder dystocia and maternal and fetal birth trauma. Two dimensional ultrasound biometry has been shown to be inaccurate in diagnosing macrosomia. We performed a systematic review to compare 2D ultrasound with 3D and MRI methods. Methods: Systematic review of the literature, with bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity, specificity and positive (LR +ve) and negative likelihood ratios (LR-ve), with 95% confidence intervals (CI), for macrosomia. Results: 46 studies were included. 25 studies (20591 women) used estimated fetal weight (EFW) calculated with the Hadlock formula. Using any definition of macrosomia, this gave a sensitivity of 0.58 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.63) and specificity of 0.93 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.94), LR +ve 7.86 (6.17 to 10.02) and LR-ve 0.45 (0.41 to 0.49). 8 studies (4546 women) used Hadlock EFW > 90 th centile to predict birth weight > 90 th centile; the sensitivity was 0.49 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.59), and specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.95). 3 studies (117 women) used MRI EFW > 90 th centile to predict birth weight > 90 th centile with summary sensitivity 0.82 (95% CI: 0.60 to 0.95) and specificity 0.98 (0.92 to 1.00). One study (200 women) used 3D ultrasound volumetry to predict macrosomia, with a sensitivity of 0.42 and specificity 0.98. Conclusion: MRI appears to be more accurate than 2D or 3D ultrasound for detection of fetal macrosomia, but this is based on relatively few measurements. We plan a diagnostic accuracy study to investigate this further. … (more)
- Is Part Of:
- Archives of disease in childhood. Volume 99:Supplement 1(2014)
- Journal:
- Archives of disease in childhood
- Issue:
- Volume 99:Supplement 1(2014)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 99, Issue 1 (2014)
- Year:
- 2014
- Volume:
- 99
- Issue:
- 1
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2014-0099-0001-0000
- Page Start:
- A97
- Page End:
- A100
- Publication Date:
- 2014-06-09
- Subjects:
- Infants -- Diseases -- Periodicals
Newborn infants -- Diseases -- Periodicals
Fetus -- Diseases -- Periodicals
618.920105 - Journal URLs:
- http://fn.bmjjournals.com ↗
http://www.bmj.com/archive ↗ - DOI:
- 10.1136/archdischild-2014-306576.278 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 1359-2998
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library DSC - BLDSS-3PM
British Library STI - ELD Digital store - Ingest File:
- 18426.xml