Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging to ultrasound in the estimation of birth weight at term

Michael V. Zaretsky, Taylor F. Reichel, Donald D. McIntire, Diane M. Twickler

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

47 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to compare magnetic resonance (MR) and ultrasound (US) fetal weight estimates obtained immediately before delivery with birth weight. STUDY DESIGN: Eighty women scheduled for a cesarean delivery underwent a fast acquisition MR and US for fetal weight estimation within 3 hours of delivery. Prospective MR calculation was based on the equation 0.12 + 1.031 g/mL x fetal volume (ml) = MR weight (g). US fetal weight estimation was calculated by the formula by Hadlock et al. Estimations were compared with birth weight. RESULTS: Correlation (95% Cl) between birth weight and MR weight is 0.95 with a mean absolute error of 129 g (105-155) compared with the correlation between birth weight and US of 0.85 with a mean absolute error of 225 g (186-264). The correlation for birth weight and MR imaging is significantly greater than that of birth weight and US, P < .001. CONCLUSION: Birth weight estimation is more accurate by MR imaging than by US in term infants.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1017-1020
Number of pages4
JournalAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Volume189
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2003

Fingerprint

Birth Weight
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy
Fetal Weight
Weights and Measures

Keywords

  • Birth weight
  • Fetus
  • Magnetic resonance imaging
  • Ultrasound

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging to ultrasound in the estimation of birth weight at term. / Zaretsky, Michael V.; Reichel, Taylor F.; McIntire, Donald D.; Twickler, Diane M.

In: American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vol. 189, No. 4, 10.2003, p. 1017-1020.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e3f5956b16bf4f6cba982d164027de96,
title = "Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging to ultrasound in the estimation of birth weight at term",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to compare magnetic resonance (MR) and ultrasound (US) fetal weight estimates obtained immediately before delivery with birth weight. STUDY DESIGN: Eighty women scheduled for a cesarean delivery underwent a fast acquisition MR and US for fetal weight estimation within 3 hours of delivery. Prospective MR calculation was based on the equation 0.12 + 1.031 g/mL x fetal volume (ml) = MR weight (g). US fetal weight estimation was calculated by the formula by Hadlock et al. Estimations were compared with birth weight. RESULTS: Correlation (95{\%} Cl) between birth weight and MR weight is 0.95 with a mean absolute error of 129 g (105-155) compared with the correlation between birth weight and US of 0.85 with a mean absolute error of 225 g (186-264). The correlation for birth weight and MR imaging is significantly greater than that of birth weight and US, P < .001. CONCLUSION: Birth weight estimation is more accurate by MR imaging than by US in term infants.",
keywords = "Birth weight, Fetus, Magnetic resonance imaging, Ultrasound",
author = "Zaretsky, {Michael V.} and Reichel, {Taylor F.} and McIntire, {Donald D.} and Twickler, {Diane M.}",
year = "2003",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1067/S0002-9378(03)00895-0",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "189",
pages = "1017--1020",
journal = "American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology",
issn = "0002-9378",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging to ultrasound in the estimation of birth weight at term

AU - Zaretsky, Michael V.

AU - Reichel, Taylor F.

AU - McIntire, Donald D.

AU - Twickler, Diane M.

PY - 2003/10

Y1 - 2003/10

N2 - OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to compare magnetic resonance (MR) and ultrasound (US) fetal weight estimates obtained immediately before delivery with birth weight. STUDY DESIGN: Eighty women scheduled for a cesarean delivery underwent a fast acquisition MR and US for fetal weight estimation within 3 hours of delivery. Prospective MR calculation was based on the equation 0.12 + 1.031 g/mL x fetal volume (ml) = MR weight (g). US fetal weight estimation was calculated by the formula by Hadlock et al. Estimations were compared with birth weight. RESULTS: Correlation (95% Cl) between birth weight and MR weight is 0.95 with a mean absolute error of 129 g (105-155) compared with the correlation between birth weight and US of 0.85 with a mean absolute error of 225 g (186-264). The correlation for birth weight and MR imaging is significantly greater than that of birth weight and US, P < .001. CONCLUSION: Birth weight estimation is more accurate by MR imaging than by US in term infants.

AB - OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to compare magnetic resonance (MR) and ultrasound (US) fetal weight estimates obtained immediately before delivery with birth weight. STUDY DESIGN: Eighty women scheduled for a cesarean delivery underwent a fast acquisition MR and US for fetal weight estimation within 3 hours of delivery. Prospective MR calculation was based on the equation 0.12 + 1.031 g/mL x fetal volume (ml) = MR weight (g). US fetal weight estimation was calculated by the formula by Hadlock et al. Estimations were compared with birth weight. RESULTS: Correlation (95% Cl) between birth weight and MR weight is 0.95 with a mean absolute error of 129 g (105-155) compared with the correlation between birth weight and US of 0.85 with a mean absolute error of 225 g (186-264). The correlation for birth weight and MR imaging is significantly greater than that of birth weight and US, P < .001. CONCLUSION: Birth weight estimation is more accurate by MR imaging than by US in term infants.

KW - Birth weight

KW - Fetus

KW - Magnetic resonance imaging

KW - Ultrasound

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0242593807&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0242593807&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1067/S0002-9378(03)00895-0

DO - 10.1067/S0002-9378(03)00895-0

M3 - Article

VL - 189

SP - 1017

EP - 1020

JO - American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

JF - American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

SN - 0002-9378

IS - 4

ER -