English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The assessment of sonographic estimated fetal weight (EFW) enables identification of fetuses in the extremes of weight, thus aiding in the planning and management of peripartum care. There are conflicting reports regarding the accuracy of EFW in diabetic mothers. We aimed to study the factors associated with the accuracy of EFW at term, specifically the role of gestational and pre-gestational diabetes in this setting. A retrospective study including all women carrying singleton term gestations who delivered within a week following a sonographic fetal weight estimation between 2011 and 2019. Accurate EFW was defined as within 10% of the actual birthweight. We allocated the study cohort into two groups: (1) Accurate EFW (2) inaccurate EFW. Both groups were compared in order to identify factors associated with the inaccuracy of EFW. Overall, 41,263 deliveries were available for evaluation, including 412 (1.0%) deliveries among women with pre-gestational diabetes and 4,735 (11.5%) among women with gestational diabetes. Of them, 7,280 (17.6%) had inaccurate EFW. Inaccurate EFW was associated with nulliparity, OR 0.82 [95% CI] (0.78–0.87), oligohydramnios, OR 0.81 [95% CI] (0.71–0.93), pregestational diabetes, OR [95% CI] 0.61 (0.50–0.79), and extremity of fetal weight; &lt;2,500 grams–OR [95% CI] 0.37 (0.33–0.41) and &gt;4,000 grams OR [95% CI] 0.52 (0.48–0.57). On multiple regression analysis, the following factors were independently associated with inaccurate EFW: pregestational diabetes, OR [95% CI] 0.58 (0.46–0.73),  p  &lt; .001, nulliparity, OR [95% CI] 0.86 (0.82–0.91),  p  &lt; .001 and higher fetal weight (for each 500 grams), OR [95% CI [1.25 (1.21–1.30),  p  &lt; .001. On analysis of different weight categories, pregestational diabetes was associated with inaccurate EFW only in those with birthweight &gt;3,500 grams, OR [95% CI] 0.37 (0.24–0.56) ( p  &lt; .001). Among pregestational diabetic women, the accuracy of sonographic EFW when assessed to be &gt;3,500 grams is questionable. This should be taken into consideration when consulting women and planning delivery management. Among pregestational diabetic women, the accuracy of estimated sonographic fetal weight higher than 3,500 grams is of limited accuracy.

The effect of fetal weight on the accuracy of sonographic weight estimation among women with diabetes