Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2765898936> ?p ?o ?g. }
- W2765898936 endingPage "128.e11" @default.
- W2765898936 startingPage "128.e1" @default.
- W2765898936 abstract "Background During prenatal follow-up of twin pregnancies, accurate identification of birthweight and birthweight discordance is important to identify the high-risk group and plan perinatal care. Unfortunately, prenatal evaluation of birthweight discordance by 2-dimensional ultrasound has been far from optimal. Objective The objective of the study was to prospectively compare estimates of fetal weight based on 2-dimensional ultrasound (ultrasound–estimated fetal weight) and magnetic resonance imaging (magnetic resonance–estimated fetal weight) with actual birthweight in women carrying twin pregnancies. Study Design Written informed consent was obtained for this ethics committee–approved study. Between September 2011 and December 2015 and within 48 hours before delivery, ultrasound–estimated fetal weight and magnetic resonance–estimated fetal weight were conducted in 66 fetuses deriving from twin pregnancies at 34.3–39.0 weeks; gestation. Magnetic resonance–estimated fetal weight derived from manual measurement of fetal body volume. Comparison of magnetic resonance–estimated fetal weight and ultrasound–estimated fetal weight measurements vs birthweight was performed by calculating parameters as described by Bland and Altman. Receiver-operating characteristic curves were constructed for the prediction of small-for-gestational-age neonates using magnetic resonance–estimated fetal weight and ultrasound–estimated fetal weight. For twins 1 and 2 separately, the relative error or percentage error was calculated as follows: (birthweight – ultrasound–estimated fetal weight (or magnetic resonance–estimated fetal weight)/birthweight) × 100 (percentage). Furthermore, ultrasound–estimated fetal weight, magnetic resonance–estimated fetal weight, and birthweight discordance were calculated as 100 × (larger estimated fetal weight–smaller estimated fetal weight)/larger estimated fetal weight. The ultrasound–estimated fetal weight discordance and the birthweight discordance were correlated using linear regression analysis and Pearson’s correlation coefficient. The same was done between the magnetic resonance–estimated fetal weight and birthweight discordance. To compare data, the χ2, McNemar test, Student t test, and Wilcoxon signed rank test were used as appropriate. We used the Fisher r-to-z transformation to compare correlation coefficients. Results The bias and the 95% limits of agreement of ultrasound–estimated fetal weight are 2.99 (–19.17% to 25.15%) and magnetic resonance–estimated fetal weight 0.63 (–9.41% to 10.67%). Limits of agreement were better between magnetic resonance–estimated fetal weight and actual birthweight as compared with the ultrasound–estimated fetal weight. Of the 66 newborns, 27 (40.9%) were of weight of the 10th centile or less and 21 (31.8%) of the fifth centile or less. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve for prediction of birthweight the 10th centile or less by prenatal ultrasound was 0.895 (P < .001; SE, 0.049), and by magnetic resonance imaging it was 0.946 (P < .001; SE, 0.024). Pairwise comparison of receiver-operating characteristic curves showed a significant difference between the areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves (difference, 0.087, P = .049; SE, 0.044). The relative error for ultrasound–estimated fetal weight was 6.8% and by magnetic resonance–estimated fetal weight, 3.2% (P < .001). When using ultrasound–estimated fetal weight, 37.9% of fetuses (25 of 66) were estimated outside the range of ±10% of the actual birthweight, whereas this dropped to 6.1% (4 of 66) with magnetic resonance–estimated fetal weight (P < .001). The ultrasound–estimated fetal weight discordance and the birthweight discordance correlated significantly following the linear equation: ultrasound–estimated fetal weight discordance = 0.03 + 0.91 × birthweight (r = 0.75; P < .001); however, the correlation was better with magnetic resonance imaging: magnetic resonance–estimated fetal weight discordance = 0.02 + 0.81 × birthweight (r = 0.87; P < .001). Conclusion In twin pregnancies, magnetic resonance–estimated fetal weight performed immediately prior to delivery is more accurate and predicts small-for-gestational-age neonates significantly better than ultrasound–estimated fetal weight. Prediction of birthweight discordance is better with magnetic resonance imaging as compared with ultrasound. During prenatal follow-up of twin pregnancies, accurate identification of birthweight and birthweight discordance is important to identify the high-risk group and plan perinatal care. Unfortunately, prenatal evaluation of birthweight discordance by 2-dimensional ultrasound has been far from optimal. The objective of the study was to prospectively compare estimates of fetal weight based on 2-dimensional ultrasound (ultrasound–estimated fetal weight) and magnetic resonance imaging (magnetic resonance–estimated fetal weight) with actual birthweight in women carrying twin pregnancies. Written informed consent was obtained for this ethics committee–approved study. Between September 2011 and December 2015 and within 48 hours before delivery, ultrasound–estimated fetal weight and magnetic resonance–estimated fetal weight were conducted in 66 fetuses deriving from twin pregnancies at 34.3–39.0 weeks; gestation. Magnetic resonance–estimated fetal weight derived from manual measurement of fetal body volume. Comparison of magnetic resonance–estimated fetal weight and ultrasound–estimated fetal weight measurements vs birthweight was performed by calculating parameters as described by Bland and Altman. Receiver-operating characteristic curves were constructed for the prediction of small-for-gestational-age neonates using magnetic resonance–estimated fetal weight and ultrasound–estimated fetal weight. For twins 1 and 2 separately, the relative error or percentage error was calculated as follows: (birthweight – ultrasound–estimated fetal weight (or magnetic resonance–estimated fetal weight)/birthweight) × 100 (percentage). Furthermore, ultrasound–estimated fetal weight, magnetic resonance–estimated fetal weight, and birthweight discordance were calculated as 100 × (larger estimated fetal weight–smaller estimated fetal weight)/larger estimated fetal weight. The ultrasound–estimated fetal weight discordance and the birthweight discordance were correlated using linear regression analysis and Pearson’s correlation coefficient. The same was done between the magnetic resonance–estimated fetal weight and birthweight discordance. To compare data, the χ2, McNemar test, Student t test, and Wilcoxon signed rank test were used as appropriate. We used the Fisher r-to-z transformation to compare correlation coefficients. The bias and the 95% limits of agreement of ultrasound–estimated fetal weight are 2.99 (–19.17% to 25.15%) and magnetic resonance–estimated fetal weight 0.63 (–9.41% to 10.67%). Limits of agreement were better between magnetic resonance–estimated fetal weight and actual birthweight as compared with the ultrasound–estimated fetal weight. Of the 66 newborns, 27 (40.9%) were of weight of the 10th centile or less and 21 (31.8%) of the fifth centile or less. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve for prediction of birthweight the 10th centile or less by prenatal ultrasound was 0.895 (P < .001; SE, 0.049), and by magnetic resonance imaging it was 0.946 (P < .001; SE, 0.024). Pairwise comparison of receiver-operating characteristic curves showed a significant difference between the areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves (difference, 0.087, P = .049; SE, 0.044). The relative error for ultrasound–estimated fetal weight was 6.8% and by magnetic resonance–estimated fetal weight, 3.2% (P < .001). When using ultrasound–estimated fetal weight, 37.9% of fetuses (25 of 66) were estimated outside the range of ±10% of the actual birthweight, whereas this dropped to 6.1% (4 of 66) with magnetic resonance–estimated fetal weight (P < .001). The ultrasound–estimated fetal weight discordance and the birthweight discordance correlated significantly following the linear equation: ultrasound–estimated fetal weight discordance = 0.03 + 0.91 × birthweight (r = 0.75; P < .001); however, the correlation was better with magnetic resonance imaging: magnetic resonance–estimated fetal weight discordance = 0.02 + 0.81 × birthweight (r = 0.87; P < .001). In twin pregnancies, magnetic resonance–estimated fetal weight performed immediately prior to delivery is more accurate and predicts small-for-gestational-age neonates significantly better than ultrasound–estimated fetal weight. Prediction of birthweight discordance is better with magnetic resonance imaging as compared with ultrasound." @default.
- W2765898936 created "2017-11-10" @default.
- W2765898936 creator A5010005177 @default.
- W2765898936 creator A5023712843 @default.
- W2765898936 creator A5058650021 @default.
- W2765898936 creator A5067863262 @default.
- W2765898936 creator A5081192617 @default.
- W2765898936 creator A5087487932 @default.
- W2765898936 date "2018-01-01" @default.
- W2765898936 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
- W2765898936 title "Comparison of conventional 2D ultrasound to magnetic resonance imaging for prenatal estimation of birthweight in twin pregnancy" @default.
- W2765898936 cites W1491044005 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W1524841208 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W1930869087 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W1966027650 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W1966782932 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W1968532354 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W1970745898 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W1972705100 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W1974124018 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W1974345749 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W1978819153 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W1979697093 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W1982868595 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W1988636276 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W1989904752 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W1990872399 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W1991134303 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W1993053583 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W1997959314 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W1998306205 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2001351764 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2011812605 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2014871885 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2015795623 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2026322035 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2027215207 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2029219107 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2029542241 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2033575323 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2045202971 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2045238580 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2055962936 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2063811159 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2065882783 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2066241037 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2081544461 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2083078383 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2084144640 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2089524312 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2090381092 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2098357771 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2099372996 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2121893279 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2123494446 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2127367027 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2130586615 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2134118642 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2149798480 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2157314380 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2159359365 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2160723047 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2165179917 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2165923451 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2168790053 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2175326497 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2188541897 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2197240773 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2201822610 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2203181040 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2221608514 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2234776485 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2278113321 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2296931830 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2313878536 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2324042681 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2328176404 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2336899054 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2345230431 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2356250851 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2370068156 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2394960694 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2514115317 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2523293547 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2562410269 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2568636818 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2589003932 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2599362194 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2600532684 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2605594497 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2607157893 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2650332012 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W2729842384 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W4242827552 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W4248695075 @default.
- W2765898936 cites W4251127183 @default.
- W2765898936 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.10.009" @default.
- W2765898936 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29045850" @default.