切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华医学超声杂志(电子版) ›› 2018, Vol. 15 ›› Issue (06) : 452 -457. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1672-6448.2018.06.012

所属专题: 文献

妇产科超声影像学

不同超声公式评估妊娠期糖尿病胎儿体质量的效能差异
茆丽敏1,(), 刘明松1, 费敬英1, 查艺葆1   
  1. 1. 313000 湖州市妇幼保健院超声科
  • 收稿日期:2017-09-05 出版日期:2018-06-01
  • 通信作者: 茆丽敏
  • 基金资助:
    湖州市科技计划项目(2013GY28)

Efficacy of different ultrasonographic fetal weight estimatingformulas in estimatingfetal birth weighting estational diabetes mellitus

Limin Mao1,(), Mingsong Liu1, Jingying Fei1, Yibao Zha1   

  1. 1. Department of Ultrasound, Huzhou Maternal and Child Health Hospital, Huzhou 313000, China
  • Received:2017-09-05 Published:2018-06-01
  • Corresponding author: Limin Mao
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Mao Limin, Emai:
引用本文:

茆丽敏, 刘明松, 费敬英, 查艺葆. 不同超声公式评估妊娠期糖尿病胎儿体质量的效能差异[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2018, 15(06): 452-457.

Limin Mao, Mingsong Liu, Jingying Fei, Yibao Zha. Efficacy of different ultrasonographic fetal weight estimatingformulas in estimatingfetal birth weighting estational diabetes mellitus[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2018, 15(06): 452-457.

目的

探讨不同超声公式评估妊娠期糖尿病胎儿体质量的效能差异。

方法

回顾性分析2016年1月至2017年6月于湖州市妇幼保健院进行分娩的92例单胎妊娠期糖尿病产妇。计算不同超声公式评估的胎儿估计体质量(EFW)与实际出生后体质量(ABW)间平均百分比误差(MPE)和平均百分比绝对误差(MAPE)。应用组内相关系数(ICC)评价不同超声公式评估的EFW与ABW间的一致性。采用Kruskal-Wallis秩和检验比较不同超声公式评估胎儿出生体质量的MPE和MAPE、不同超声公式评估不同体质量胎儿出生体质量的MAPE,进一步两两比较采用Mann-Whitney检验;采用χ2检验比较8种超声公式评估>4000 g胎儿出生体质量的准确性(高估率、低估率)和偏倚程度(MAPE≤5%、≤10%和≤15%的比例),进一步两两比较采用χ2检验。

结果

8种超声公式评估胎儿出生体质量的ICC差异均有统计学意义(H=15.668,P=0.028),其中公式1(Hadlock)和公式7(Schild)的ICC最高分别为0.907和0.925。公式1、2、7评估胎儿出生体质量的MPE和MAPE均低于公式3、4、5、6、8,且差异均有统计学意义;而公式3、4、5、6、8评估胎儿出生体质量的MPE和MAPE差异均无统计学意义,公式1、2、7评估胎儿出生体质量的MPE和MAPE差异也均无统计学意义。公式1、7评估>4000 g胎儿出生体质量的MAPE均低于公式2、3、4、5、6、8,公式7评估>4000 g胎儿出生体质量的MAPE低于公式1,且差异均有统计学意义;而公式2、3、4、5、6、8评估>4000 g胎儿出生体质量的MAPE差异均无统计学意义。8种超声公式对>4000 g胎儿出生体质量MAPE≤5%、≤15%的比例差异均无统计学意义。公式1、7对>4000 g胎儿出生体质量的高估率、低估率均低于公式2、3、4、5、6、8,MAPE≤10%的比例均高于公式2、3、4、5、6、8,且差异均有统计学意义;而公式2、3、4、5、6、8对>4000 g胎儿出生体质量的高估率、低估率、MAPE≤10%的比例差异均无统计学意义,公式1、7对>4000 g胎儿出生体质量的高估率、低估率、MAPE≤10%的比例差异也均无统计学意义。

结论

在常用的8种超声公式中,Hadlock和Schild提出的2种公式在妊娠期糖尿病胎儿评估中的效能较高。

Objective

To evaluate the accuracy of differentul trasonographic fetal weight estimating formulas in gestational diabetes mellitus.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of 92 singleton gestational diabetes maternal births from January 2016 to June 2017 was performed at Huzhou Maternal and Child Health Hospital. The mean percent error (MPE) and mean percent absolute error (MAPE) between the estimated fetal body mass (EFW) and the actual postnatal mass (ABW) assessed by different ultrasound formulas were compared. The intra-group correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to evaluate the consistency between EFW and ABW assessed by different ultrasound formulas. The Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test was used to compare the MPE and MAPE of different fetal formulas to evaluate the birth weight of the fetus, and the different ultrasound formulas were used to evaluate the MAPE of the birth weight of different body weights. The Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the two pairs. The χ2 test was used to compare the accuracy of 8 ultrasound formulas evaluating the birth weight of the 4000 g of the fetus (overestimation rate, underestimation rate) and the degree of bias (MAPE≤5%, ≤10% and ≤15%), and the χ2 test was used for further comparison.

Results

The ICCs of the 8 commonly used ultrasound formulas were quite different, of which the formula 1 (Hadlock) and formula 7 (Schild) had the highest ICC (0.907 and 0.925) in all the 8 formulae. There was a significant difference between the average percent error in weight assessment and the absolute mean absolute error. The MPE and MAPE of Formula 1 (Hadlock), Formula 2 (Hadlock) and Formula 7 (Schild) were significantly lower than those of other formulas. All the 8 formulas had statistically significant differences for the fetuses>4000 g. The MAPEs of formula 1 (Hadlock) and formula 7 (Schild) were significantly lower than those of other formulas, while that of the formula 7 was significantly lower than that of formula 1. There were significant differences in the overestimation rate, underestimation rate, and bias≤10% for the>4000 g fetus of different formulas. Overestimated and underestimated rates of formula 1 (Hadlock) and formula 7 (Schild) for fetus>4000 g were significantly lower than those of other formulas. The ratio of formula 1 and formula 7 with bias≤10% was significantly higher than those of other formulas.

Conclusion

In the commonly used eight formulas, two formulas proposed by Hadlock and Schild have higher efficacy in the gestational diabetes mellitus and can reduce the possibility of over estimating or underestimating.

表1 常用的8种预测胎儿出生体质量的超声公式
表2 不同超声公式评估胎儿出生体质量的ICC比较
表3 不同超声公式评估胎儿出生体质量的MPE和MAPE比较[%,MQR)]
表4 不同超声公式评估不同体质量胎儿出生体质量的MAPE比较[%,MQR)]
表5 8种超声公式评估>4000 g胎儿出生体质量的准确性和偏倚程度[%(例)]
1
Lindsay RS, Mackin ST, Nelson SM. Gestational diabetes mellitus-right person, right treatment, right time? [J]. BMC Med, 2017, 15(1): 163.
2
Tieu J, Middleton P, Crowther CA, et al. Preconception care for diabetic women for improving maternal and infant health [J]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2017, 8: CD007776.
3
中国医师协会超声医师分会. 产前超声检查指南(2012) [J/CD]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2012, 9(7): 574-580.
4
中华医学会妇产科学分会产科学组, 中华医学会围产医学分会妊娠合并糖尿病协作组. 妊娠合并糖尿病诊治指南(2014) [J]. 中华妇产科杂志, 2014, 49(8): 561-569.
5
Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Sharman RS, et al. Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements--a prospective study [J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 1985, 151(3): 333-337.
6
Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Carpenter RJ, et al. Sonographic estimation of fetal weight. The value of femur length in addition to head and abdomen measurements [J]. Radiology, 1984, 150(2): 535-540.
7
Campbell S, Wilkin D. Ultrasonic measurement of fetal abdomen circumference in the estimation of fetal weight [J]. Br J Obstet Gynaecol, 1975, 82(9): 689-697.
8
Merz E, Lieser H, Schicketanz KH, et al. Intrauterine fetal weight assessment using ultrasound. A comparison of several weight assessment methods and development of a new formula for the determination of fetal weight [J]. Ultraschall Med, 1988, 9(1): 15-24.
9
Schild RL, Sachs C, Fimmers R, et al. Sex-specific fetal weight prediction by ultrasound [J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2004, 23(1): 30-35.
10
Özdamar Ö, Gün I, Öner Ö, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of ultrasonography fetal weight estimation models; assessing regression formulae in a Turkish population [J]. J Obstet Gynaecol, 2015, 35(5): 437-441.
11
Lanowski JS, Lanowski G, Schippert C, et al. Ultrasound versus Clinical Examination to Estimate Fetal Weight at Term [J]. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd, 2017, 77(3): 276-283.
12
Peixoto AB, TMR dCC, Dulgheroff FF, et al. Fetal biometric parameters: Reference charts for a non-selected risk population from Uberaba, Brazil [J]. J Ultrason, 2017, 17(68): 23-29.
13
Pagani G, Palai N, Zatti S, et al. Fetal weight estimation in gestational diabetic pregnancies: comparison between conventional and three-dimensional fractional thigh volume methods using gestation-adjusted projection [J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2014, 43(1): 72-76.
14
Rosati P, Arduini M, Giri C, et al. Ultrasonographic weight estimation in large for gestational age fetuses: a comparison of 17 sonographic formulas and four models algorithms [J]. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 2010, 23(7): 675-680.
15
Kadji C, Cannie MM, Van Wettere M, et al. A Longitudinal Study on Fetal Weight Estimation at Third Trimester of Pregnancy: Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and 2-D Ultrasound Predictions [J]. Fetal Diagn Ther, 2017, 42(3): 181-188.
16
Visser L, de Boer MA, de Groot CJM, et al. Low dose aspirin in the prevention of recurrent spontaneous preterm labour-the APRIL study: a multicenter randomized placebo controlled trial [J]. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 2017, 17(1): 223.
17
Husslein H, Worda C, Leipold H, et al. Accuracy of Fetal Weight Estimation in Women with Diet Controlled Gestational Diabetes [J]. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd, 2012, 72(2): 144-148.
18
de Santis MS, Taricco E, Radaelli T, et al. Growth of fetal lean mass and fetal fat mass in gestational diabetes [J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2010, 36(3): 328-337.
[1] 戴飞, 赵博文, 潘美, 彭晓慧, 陈冉, 田园诗, 狄敏. 胎儿心脏超声定量多参数对主动脉缩窄胎儿心脏结构及功能的诊断价值[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(10): 950-958.
[2] 章建全, 程杰, 陈红琼, 闫磊. 采用ACR-TIRADS评估甲状腺消融区的调查研究[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(10): 966-971.
[3] 罗辉, 方晔. 品管圈在提高甲状腺结节细针穿刺检出率中的应用[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(10): 972-977.
[4] 杜祖升, 赵博文, 张帧, 潘美, 彭晓慧, 陈冉, 毛彦恺. 应用二维斑点追踪成像技术评估孕周及心尖方向对中晚孕期正常胎儿左心房应变的影响[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(09): 843-851.
[5] 杨忠, 时敬业, 邓学东, 姜纬, 殷林亮, 潘琦, 梁泓, 马建芳, 王珍奇, 张俊, 董姗姗. 产前超声在胎儿22q11.2 微缺失综合征中的应用价值[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(09): 852-858.
[6] 孙佳丽, 金琳, 沈崔琴, 陈晴晴, 林艳萍, 李朝军, 徐栋. 机器人辅助超声引导下经皮穿刺的体外实验研究[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(09): 884-889.
[7] 史学兵, 谢迎东, 谢霓, 徐超丽, 杨斌, 孙帼. 声辐射力弹性成像对不可切除肝细胞癌门静脉癌栓患者放射治疗效果的评价[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(08): 778-784.
[8] 张商迪, 赵博文, 潘美, 彭晓慧, 陈冉, 毛彦恺, 陈阳, 袁华, 陈燕. 中晚孕期胎儿心房内径定量评估心房比例失调胎儿心脏畸形的价值[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(08): 785-793.
[9] 顾莉莉, 姜凡. 安徽省超声产前筛查切面图像质量现状调查情况及分析[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(07): 671-674.
[10] 王秋莲, 张莹, 李春敏, 徐树明, 张玉奇. 胎儿主动脉弓部梗阻伴发复杂心内畸形的产前超声诊断及漏误诊分析[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(07): 718-725.
[11] 李洋, 蔡金玉, 党晓智, 常婉英, 巨艳, 高毅, 宋宏萍. 基于深度学习的乳腺超声应变弹性图像生成模型的应用研究[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(06): 563-570.
[12] 洪玮, 叶细容, 刘枝红, 杨银凤, 吕志红. 超声影像组学联合临床病理特征预测乳腺癌新辅助化疗完全病理缓解的价值[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(06): 571-579.
[13] 曾晴, 文华轩, 袁鹰, 廖伊梅, 秦越, 罗丹丹, 梁美玲, 李胜利. 经腹二维超声评价胎儿大脑外侧裂的新参数——外侧裂平台角度[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(05): 454-459.
[14] 王水清, 赵博文, 潘美, 彭晓慧, 陈冉, 马明明, 狄敏. 16~40周正常胎儿左心房后间隙指数及其Z评分的定量研究[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(05): 460-469.
[15] 张琛, 秦鸣, 董娟, 陈玉龙. 超声检查对儿童肠扭转缺血性改变的诊断价值[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(06): 565-568.
阅读次数
全文


摘要