Re: EFW
From: Terry J DuBose (tjdubose@juno.com)
Sat Aug 31 05:08:48 2002
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
----__JNP_000_7c96.08c7.0248
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Gunjan, Warsof, et al table is about 9-11 pages long and we would
need permission to reprint it here. At this moment I do not have time to
do that, however, it is a fairly common chart in many textbooks... The
original publication is:
Warsof SL, Gohari P, Berkowitz RL, et al: The estimation of fetal weight
by computer-assisted analysis. AM J Obstet Gynecol 1977; 128:881-892.
Some believe the Shepard et al variation on the Warsof method (BPS & AC)
is slightly better...
Shepard MJ, Richards VA, Berkowitz RL, et al: An evaluation of two
equations for predicting fetal weight by ultrasound. Am J Obstet Gynecol
1982; 147-47-54.
It is in my book on pages 128-138 (DuBose, Fetal Sonography, W. B.
Saunders, 1996).
Also, Hadlock et al published an AC & Femur length weight estimate that
is also good..
Hadlock, Harrist, & Carpenter, Radiology 1984, 150:535-540.
I hope this helps.
Perhaps a good undertaking for the Ultrasound section of OBGYN.net would
be to agree upon some of the better charts & tables and request
permission to reprint here...
Peace, Terry J DuBose
Little Rock, Arkansas USA
-----------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:02:43 -0500 "Gunjan" <drgap@iqara.net> writes:
-----------------------------------------------------
> Warsof et al
--
-----------------------------------------------------
> Can we have that chart please.
>
> Gunjan
>> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sue Davies" <sue@aiu.edu.au>
> To: "Multiple recipients of list ULTRASOUND"
> <ultrasound@mail.medispecialty.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 4:39 AM
> Subject: RE: EFW
>
> > Many moons ago (too many to be mentioned!) we did a prospective
> study on
> > EFW using a scientific planimeter and mean diameters to estimate
> > circumference and then using three different charts to estimate
> weight.
> > All 800 babies in the study were delivered and measured within
> 48hrs of
> > ultrasound EFW. Our results showed:
> > 1. There was no significant difference between methods of
> measuring
> > circumference.
> > 2. Most accurate of the charts which we used was Warsof et al
> > 3. Confidence rates were +/-10%
> > 4. Operators need to be exacting in their selection of sections
> for
> > measurement.
> >
> > It was a long time ago but these types of measurements should only
> get
> > better with improved equipment.
> > Cheers
> > Sue
> > Sue Davies
> > Program Director
> > Australian Institute of Ultrasound
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ultrasound@obgyn.net [mailto:ultrasound@obgyn.net] On Behalf
> Of
> > Allen Worrall
> > Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2002 2:15 AM
> > To: Multiple recipients of list ULTRASOUND
> > Subject: Re: EFW
> >
> > I presume these were patients who delivered within a few days of
> your
> > examination. I find that doing ultrasound measurements that late
> in
> > pregnancy can be difficult if the position of the fetus is not
> > favorable. Particularly the AC: you will be lucky if you can see
> the
> > entire periphery of the abdomen outlined by amniotic fluid. If the
> baby
> > is prone, it may be difficult or impossible to obtain a lateral
> axial
> > view of the head for the BPD/HC, or you may have to obtain the
> BPD/HC
> > from a posterior or anterior axial view. And the femur might be
> buried
> > under the baby, etc, etc.
> >
> > My machine gives a +/- with the EFW. I am not sure what the
> latest
> > thoughts are, but I understood EFW could be +/- 20%.
> >
> > I have had 1 or 2 cases that delivered shortly after I did an
> ultrasound
> > exam, but I did not bother to check the delivery weight against my
> EFW.
> >
> > Allen
>> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "art fougner, md" <evsono@pipeline.com>
> > To: "Multiple recipients of list ULTRASOUND"
> > <ultrasound@mail.medispecialty.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 5:23 AM
> > Subject: EFW
> >
> > > ok new topic - what's the largest error of weight estimation by
> > > ultrasound you've made? mine so far was 1200 gm - estimated 4500
> and
> > > actual weight was 5700g. also had one the other direction - EFW
> was
> > > 4000 actual weight 4550. we use the hadlock formula built into
> machine
> >
> > > - any thoughts, experiences, etc?
> > >
> > > art
> > >
> > > --
> > > art fougner, md
> > > ich bin ein New Yorker
> >
>
----__JNP_000_7c96.08c7.0248
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
Dear Gunjan, Warsof, et al table is about 9-11 pages long and we would
need permission to reprint it here. At this moment I do not have time to
do that, however, it is a fairly common chart in many textbooks... The original
publication is:
Warsof
SL, Gohari P, Berkowitz RL, et al: The estimation of fetal weight by
computer-assisted analysis. AM J
Obstet Gynecol 1977; 128:881-892.
Some
believe the Shepard et al variation on the Warsof method (BPS & AC) is
slightly better...
Shepard
MJ, Richards VA, Berkowitz RL, et al: An evaluation of two equations for
predicting fetal weight by ultrasound. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982; 147-47-54.
It is in my book on pages 128-138 (DuBose, Fetal
Sonography, W. B. Saunders, 1996).
Also,
Hadlock et al published an AC & Femur length weight estimate that is also
good..
Hadlock,
Harrist, & Carpenter, Radiology 1984, 150:535-540.
I
hope this helps.
Perhaps
a good undertaking for the Ultrasound section of OBGYN.net would be to agree
upon some of the better charts & tables and request permission to reprint
here...
Peace,
Terry J DuBose
Little
Rock, Arkansas USA
-----------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Courier; mso-fareast-font-family: '=
-----------------------------------------------------
Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:02:43 -0500 "Gunjan" <
drgap@iqara.net> writes:
> Warsof et
al
> Can we have that chart please.
>
> Gunjan
> -----
Original Message -----
> From: "Sue Davies" <
sue@aiu.edu.au>
> To: "Multiple
recipients of list ULTRASOUND"
> <
ultrasound@mail.medispecialty.com>
>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 4:39 AM
> Subject: RE: EFW
>
>
> > Many moons ago (too many to be mentioned!) we did a
prospective
> study on
> > EFW using a scientific planimeter and
mean diameters to estimate
> > circumference and then using three
different charts to estimate
> weight.
> > All 800 babies in the
study were delivered and measured within
> 48hrs of
> >
ultrasound EFW. Our results showed:
> > 1. There was no significant
difference between methods of
> measuring
> >
circumference.
> > 2. Most accurate of the charts which we used was
Warsof et al
> > 3. Confidence rates were +/-10%
> > 4.
Operators need to be exacting in their selection of sections
>
for
> > measurement.
> >
> > It was a long time ago
but these types of measurements should only
> get
> > better
with improved equipment.
> > Cheers
> > Sue
> > Sue
Davies
> > Program Director
> > Australian Institute of
Ultrasound
> >
> >
> > -----Original
Message-----
> > From:
ultrasound@obgyn.net [
mailto:ultrasound@obgyn.net] On Behalf
> Of
> > Allen Worrall
> > Sent: Thursday, 29 August
2002 2:15 AM
> > To: Multiple recipients of list ULTRASOUND
>
> Subject: Re: EFW
> >
> >
> > I presume these
were patients who delivered within a few days of
> your
> >
examination. I find that doing ultrasound measurements that late
>
in
> > pregnancy can be difficult if the position of the fetus is
not
> > favorable. Particularly the AC: you will be lucky if you can
see
> the
> > entire periphery of the abdomen outlined by
amniotic fluid. If the
> baby
> > is prone, it may be difficult
or impossible to obtain a lateral
> axial
> > view of the head
for the BPD/HC, or you may have to obtain the
> BPD/HC
> > from
a posterior or anterior axial view. And the femur might be
>
buried
> > under the baby, etc, etc.
> >
> > My
machine gives a +/- with the EFW. I am not sure what the
> latest
>
> thoughts are, but I understood EFW could be +/- 20%.
> >
>
> I have had 1 or 2 cases that delivered shortly after I did an
>
ultrasound
> > exam, but I did not bother to check the delivery weight
against my
> EFW.
> >
> > Allen
> > -----
Original Message -----
> > From: "art fougner, md" <
evsono@pipeline.com>
> > To:
"Multiple recipients of list ULTRASOUND"
> > <
ultrasound@mail.medispecialty.com>
>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 5:23 AM
> > Subject: EFW
>
>
> >
> > > ok new topic - what's the largest error of
weight estimation by
> > > ultrasound you've made? mine so far was
1200 gm - estimated 4500
> and
> > > actual weight was
5700g. also had one the other direction - EFW
> was
> >
> 4000 actual weight 4550. we use the hadlock formula built into
>
machine
> >
> > > - any thoughts, experiences, etc?
>
> >
> > > art
> > >
> > > --
>
> > art fougner, md
> > > ich bin ein New Yorker
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
