Skip to main content

Research Repository

Advanced Search

Antenatal magnetic resonance imaging versus ultrasound for predicting neonatal macrosomia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Malin, G.L.; Bugg, George; Takwoingi, Yemisi; Thornton, Jim; Jones, Nia W.

Antenatal magnetic resonance imaging versus ultrasound for predicting neonatal macrosomia: a systematic review and meta-analysis Thumbnail


Authors

G.L. Malin

George Bugg

Yemisi Takwoingi

Jim Thornton



Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Fetal macrosomia is associated with an increased risk of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.


OBJECTIVES:

To compare the accuracy of antenatal two-dimensional (2D) ultrasound, three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in predicting fetal macrosomia at birth.

SEARCH STRATEGY:


Medline (1966-2013), Embase, the Cochrane Library and Web of Knowledge.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

Cohort or diagnostic accuracy studies of women with a singleton pregnancy, who had third-trimester imaging to predict macrosomia (>4000 g, >4500 g or >90th or >95th centile).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:


Two reviewers screened studies, performed data extraction and assessed methodological quality. The bivariate model was used to obtain summary sensitivities, specificities and likelihood ratios.


MAIN RESULTS:

Fifty-eight studies (34 367 pregnant women) were included. Most were poorly reported. Only one study assessed 3D ultrasound volumetry. For predicting birthweight >4000 g or >90th centile, the summary sensitivity for 2D ultrasound (Hadlock) estimated fetal weight (EFW) >90th centile or >4000 g (29 studies) was 0.56 (95% CI 0.49-0.61), 2D ultrasound abdominal circumference (AC) >35 cm (four studies) was 0.80 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.69-0.87) and MRI EFW (three studies) was 0.93 (95% CI 0.76-0.98). The summary specificities were 0.92 (95% CI 0.90-0.94), 0.86 (95% CI 0.74-0.93) and 0.95 (95% CI 0.92-0.97), respectively.


CONCLUSION:

There is insufficient evidence to conclude that MRI EFW is more sensitive than 2D ultrasound AC (which is more sensitive than 2D EFW); although it was more specific. Further primary research is required before recommending MRI EFW for use in clinical practice.

Journal Article Type Article
Publication Date Jan 1, 2016
Deposit Date Feb 19, 2016
Publicly Available Date Feb 19, 2016
Journal BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Print ISSN 1470-0328
Electronic ISSN 1470-0328
Publisher Wiley
Peer Reviewed Peer Reviewed
Volume 123
Issue 1
DOI https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13517
Keywords Estimated fetal weight, Macrosomia, Magnetic resonance imaging, Pregnancy, Three-dimensional ultrasound, Two dimensional ultrasound
Public URL https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/979001
Publisher URL http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1471-0528.13517/abstract;jsessionid=70B22BB9687A48527FFA9225790EC1FA.f02t02?

Files





You might also like



Downloadable Citations