Predicting risk for large-for-gestational age neonates at term: A population-based Bayesian theorem study

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 41, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 398-405

  Lindell, G ^a   Marsal K ^a   Kallen K ^b  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LUND   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Bayesian theorem; large for gestational age; maternal characteristics; newborn; ultrasound

Indexed keywords

ADULT; BAYES THEOREM; ECHOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FETAL MACROSOMIA; FETUS ECHOGRAPHY; FETUS WEIGHT; HUMAN; INFANT, NEWBORN, DISEASES; NEWBORN; PHYSIOLOGY; PREGNANCY; PROGNOSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; SWEDEN; THIRD TRIMESTER PREGNANCY; ARTICLE; MACROSOMIA; NEWBORN DISEASE;

ADULT; BAYES THEOREM; FEMALE; FETAL MACROSOMIA; FETAL WEIGHT; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; INFANT, NEWBORN, DISEASES; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY TRIMESTER, THIRD; PROGNOSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; SWEDEN; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, PRENATAL;

EID: 84875449181     PISSN: 09607692     EISSN: 14690705     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/uog.11218     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Ørskou J, Kesmodel U, Brink Henriksen T, Secher NJ,. An increasing proportion of infants weigh more than 4000 grams at birth. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2001; 80: 931-936.
2. Surkan PJ, Hsieh C-C, Johansson ALV, Dickman PW, Cnattingius S,. Reasons for increasing trends in large for gestational age births. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 104: 720-726.
3. Grassi AE, Giuliano MA,. The neonate with macrosomia. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2000; 43: 340-348.
4. Gardosi J, Chang A, Kalyan B, Sahota D, Symonds EM,. Customised antenatal growth charts. Lancet 1992; 339: 283-287.
5. Maršál K, Persson P-H, Larsen T, Lilja H, Selbing A, Sultan B,. Intrauterine growth curves based on ultrasonically estimated foetal weights. Acta Pædiatr 1996; 85: 843-848.
6. Lindell G, Maršál K, Källén K,. Impact of maternal characteristics on fetal growth in the third trimester: a population-based study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 40: 680-687.
7. Kolderup LB, Laros RK Jr, Musci TJ,. Incidence of persistent birth injury in macrosomic infants: association with mode of delivery. Am J Obstet Gyecol 1997; 177: 37-41.
8. Christoffersson M, Rydhström H,. Shoulder dystocia and brachial plexus injury: a population-based study. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2002; 53: 42-47.
9. Ben-Haroush A, Yogev Y, Hod M,. Fetal weight estimation in diabetic pregnancies and suspected fetal macrosomia. J Perinat Med 2004; 32: 113-121.
10. Henriksen T., The macrosomic fetus: a challenge in current obstetrics. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2008; 87: 134-145.
11. Gudmundsson S, Henningsson A-C, Lindqvist P,. Correlation of birth injury with maternal height and birthweight. BJOG 2005; 112: 764-767.
12. Lindqvist PG, Molin J,. Does antenatal identification of small-for-gestational age fetuses significantly improve their outcome? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 25: 258-264.
13. Persson P-H, Weldner B-M,. Intra-uterine weight curves obtained by ultrasound. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1986; 65: 169-173.
14. Dudley NJ,. A systematic review of the ultrasound estimation of fetal weight. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 25: 80-89.
15. Melamed N, Yogev Y, Meizner I, Mashiach R, Bardin R, Ben-Haroush A,. Sonographic fetal weight estimation. Which model should be used? J Ultrasound Med 2009; 28: 617-629.
16. Molin J., A regional perinatal database in southern Sweden-a basis for quality assurance in obstetrics and neonatology. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1997; 164: 37-39.
17. Persson P-H, Weldner B-M,. Reliability of ultrasound fetometry in estimating gestational age in the second trimester. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1986; 65: 481-483.
18. Smith GC, Dellens M, White IR, Pell JP,. Combined logistic and Bayesian modeling of cesarean section risk. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191: 2029-2034.
19. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL,. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988; 44: 837-845.
20. Mongelli M, Benzie R,. Ultrasound diagnosis of fetal macrosomia: a comparison of weight prediction models using computer simulation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 26: 500-503.
21. Halaska MG, Vlk R, Feldmar P, Hrehorcak M, Krcmar M, Mlcochova H, Mala I, Rob L,. Predicting term birth weight using ultrasound and maternal characteristics. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2006; 128: 231-235.
22. O'Reilly-Green C, Divon M,. Sonographic and clinical methods in the diagnosis of macrosmia. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2000; 43: 309-320.
23. Mazouni C, Rouzier R, Ledu R, Heckenroth H, Guidicelli B, Gamerre M,. Development and internal validation of a nomogram to predict macrosomia. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 29: 544-549.
24. Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Sharman RS, Deter RL, Park SK,. Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body and femur measurements-a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 151: 333-337.
25. Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Marinez-Poyer J,. In utero analysis of fetal growth: a sonographic weight standard. Radiology 1991; 181: 129-133.
26. Nahum GG, Stanislaw H,. A computerized method for accurately predicting fetal macrosomia up to 11 weeks before delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2007; 133: 148-156.
27. Ben-Haroush A, Yogev Y, Hod M, Bar J,. Predictive value of a single early weight estimate in normal pregnancies. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2007; 130: 187-192.
28. Balsyte D, Schäffer L, Burkhardt T, Wisser J, Kurmanavicius J,. Sonographic prediction of macrosomia cannot be improved by combination with pregnancy-specific characteristics. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 33: 453-458.