title: Ultrasound (in)accuracy: it's in the formulae not in the technique - assessment of accuracy of abdominal circumference measurement in term pregnancies.
abstract: Introduction: Fetal abdominal circumference (AC) is utilised in calculations for the estimation of fetal weight (EFW) and has been proposed as a method of monitoring diabetic pregnancies. We evaluated true ultrasound accuracy by comparing fetal AC biometry with neonatal anthropometry and compared this with standard ultrasound estimations of fetal weight.Methods: A prospective observational study was performed at a tertiary referral centre. Women who were having their confinement of a term, singleton gestation either by induction of labour or elective caesarean section from 2009-2011 were approached to participate. An ultrasound was performed within 24 hours of delivery measuring the biometric parameters of AC, head circumference (HC), biparietal diameter and femur length. Following delivery the AC, HC and birthweight were measured on the neonate.Results: Fifty-two patients were enrolled in the study with data collected from 50. Mean AC measurement was 35.1 ± 2.1 cm and birth weight was 3596 ± 517 g. A Bland-Altman plot was used to compare the two AC measurements with the 95% limits of agreement ranging from -2.33-4.69 cm around a mean difference of 1.2 cm. Mean percentage error was 5.0% and 6.2% for the AC and HC measurements respectively, in comparison with percentage errors of 7.0-13.8% for estimation of fetal weight (EFW) from 27 formulae.Conclusions: Sonographic AC measurement is accurate in term pregnancies, with a percentage error less than HC or EFW. Perceptions of ultrasound inaccuracy may relate to the application of formulae rather than the ultrasound technique itself. Fetal surveillance using serial AC measurement has been proposed, in particular monitoring of diabetic pregnancies and in such a group AC may be easier and faster to obtain and more meaningful than EFW.
authors.affiliation: Division of Women's and Children's HealthUniversity of New South WalesRandwickNew South WalesAustralia; Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologyRoyal Hospital for WomenRandwickNew South WalesAustralia; Australian Centre for Perinatal ScienceUniversity of New South WalesRandwickNew South WalesAustralia.
authors.forename: Erin M
authors.initials: EM
authors.lastname: Nesbitt-Hawes
authors.affiliation: Division of Women's and Children's HealthUniversity of New South WalesRandwickNew South WalesAustralia; Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologyRoyal Hospital for WomenRandwickNew South WalesAustralia.
authors.forename: Emma
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Tetstall
authors.affiliation: Faculty of Medicine University of New South Wales Randwick New South Wales Australia.
authors.forename: Kiera
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Gee
authors.affiliation: Division of Women's and Children's HealthUniversity of New South WalesRandwickNew South WalesAustralia; Department of Maternal-Fetal MedicineRoyal Hospital for WomenRandwickNew South WalesAustralia; Australian Centre for Perinatal ScienceUniversity of New South WalesRandwickNew South WalesAustralia.
authors.forename: Alec W
authors.initials: AW
authors.lastname: Welsh
keywords: anthropometry; biometry; perinatal; ultrasonography