Finding the best formulas to estimate fetal weight based on ultrasound for the Turkish population: a comparison of 24 formulas
Yükleniyor...
Dosyalar
Tarih
2021
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Imr Press
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
Background: Although prenatal diagnosis of fetal weight is a very important parameter that guides the clinician, the margin of error in fetal weight is still very high. Aims: The aim of this study is to identify the most accurate sonographic formulas for fetal weight estimation in general and specific gender subgroups of the Turkish population. Method: This study is a prospective study conducted with the term 160 pregnant women who had cesarean indication and hospitalized to give birth by a cesarean section. The actual birth weight of newborn babies and the estimated fetal weights obtained with 24 formulas were compared. Additionally, the data obtained were separated according to the gender of the newborns and the most appropriate formulas for fetal gender were tried to be determined separately. Results: The lowest Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) values which are the best indicator of success to predict were obtained as 301.8 gr, 284.9 gr and 304.4 gr with the formula of Schild et al. Male for all, the formula of Schild et al. Female for male fetuses and the formula of Campbell and Wilkinfor female fetuses, respectively. Conclusion: The formulas of Schild et al. Male, Schild et al. Female, and Campbell and Wilkin were selected as the best formulas for all fetuses, male fetuses and female fetuses, respectively, for estimating fetal weights in Turkish population.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Fetal Weight Estimation, Birth Weight, Fetal Weight Formulas, Foetal Weight, Prenatal Ultrasonography, Obstetric Ultrasound
Kaynak
Clinical And Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology
WoS Q Değeri
Q4
Scopus Q Değeri
Q4
Cilt
48
Sayı
3
Künye
Koçak, Ö., & Koçak, C. (2021). Finding the best formulas to estimate fetal weight based on ultrasound for the Turkish population: a comparison of 24 formulas. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 48(3), 676-685.
