HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Smith-Bindman, R. Articles by Bacchetti, P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Smith-Bindman, R. Articles by Bacchetti, P.

US Evaluation of Fetal Growth: Prediction of Neonatal Outcomes¹

¹ From the Departments of Radiology (R.S.B., P.W.C., V.A.F., R.A.F.) and Epidemiology and Biostatistics (R.S.B., P.B.), University of California, San Francisco, UCSF/Mt Zion Medical Center, 1600 Divisadero St, Box 1667, San Francisco, CA 94115; and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (J.L.E.). Received May 2, 2001; revision requested June 4; revision received July 26; accepted August 24. R.S.B. supported in part by a Radiological Society of North America Nycomed-Amersham Research and Education Foundation grant. Address correspondence to R.S.B. (e-mail: rebecca.smith-bindman@radiology.ucsf.edu).

View larger version (30K): [in a new window]   Figure 1a. Graphs show receiver operating characteristic curves for predicting the outcomes of (a) birth weight less than 2,500 g, (b) preterm birth, (c) long neonatal hospital stay, and (d) neonatal ICU admission, constructed by using fetal growth and estimated fetal weight to define an abnormal US result. Each of the calculated areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves demonstrates that growth was more accurate than weight in predicting which fetuses would have poor outcomes. The following areas under the curve were calculated: in a, .61 for growth versus .50 for weight; in b, .45 for growth versus .40 for weight; in c, .47 for growth versus .40 for weight; and in d, .53 for growth versus .44 for weight.

View larger version (28K): [in a new window]   Figure 1b. Graphs show receiver operating characteristic curves for predicting the outcomes of (a) birth weight less than 2,500 g, (b) preterm birth, (c) long neonatal hospital stay, and (d) neonatal ICU admission, constructed by using fetal growth and estimated fetal weight to define an abnormal US result. Each of the calculated areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves demonstrates that growth was more accurate than weight in predicting which fetuses would have poor outcomes. The following areas under the curve were calculated: in a, .61 for growth versus .50 for weight; in b, .45 for growth versus .40 for weight; in c, .47 for growth versus .40 for weight; and in d, .53 for growth versus .44 for weight.

View larger version (29K): [in a new window]   Figure 1c. Graphs show receiver operating characteristic curves for predicting the outcomes of (a) birth weight less than 2,500 g, (b) preterm birth, (c) long neonatal hospital stay, and (d) neonatal ICU admission, constructed by using fetal growth and estimated fetal weight to define an abnormal US result. Each of the calculated areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves demonstrates that growth was more accurate than weight in predicting which fetuses would have poor outcomes. The following areas under the curve were calculated: in a, .61 for growth versus .50 for weight; in b, .45 for growth versus .40 for weight; in c, .47 for growth versus .40 for weight; and in d, .53 for growth versus .44 for weight.

View larger version (29K): [in a new window]   Figure 1d. Graphs show receiver operating characteristic curves for predicting the outcomes of (a) birth weight less than 2,500 g, (b) preterm birth, (c) long neonatal hospital stay, and (d) neonatal ICU admission, constructed by using fetal growth and estimated fetal weight to define an abnormal US result. Each of the calculated areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves demonstrates that growth was more accurate than weight in predicting which fetuses would have poor outcomes. The following areas under the curve were calculated: in a, .61 for growth versus .50 for weight; in b, .45 for growth versus .40 for weight; in c, .47 for growth versus .40 for weight; and in d, .53 for growth versus .44 for weight.

View larger version (23K): [in a new window]   Figure 2a. Graphs show incidence of (a) birth weight less than 2,500 g, (b) premature birth, (c) long neonatal hospital stay, and (d) neonatal intensive care unit admission by estimated fetal weight in fetuses with normal growth and inadequate growth.

View larger version (23K): [in a new window]   Figure 2b. Graphs show incidence of (a) birth weight less than 2,500 g, (b) premature birth, (c) long neonatal hospital stay, and (d) neonatal intensive care unit admission by estimated fetal weight in fetuses with normal growth and inadequate growth.

View larger version (23K): [in a new window]   Figure 2c. Graphs show incidence of (a) birth weight less than 2,500 g, (b) premature birth, (c) long neonatal hospital stay, and (d) neonatal intensive care unit admission by estimated fetal weight in fetuses with normal growth and inadequate growth.

View larger version (23K): [in a new window]   Figure 2d. Graphs show incidence of (a) birth weight less than 2,500 g, (b) premature birth, (c) long neonatal hospital stay, and (d) neonatal intensive care unit admission by estimated fetal weight in fetuses with normal growth and inadequate growth.