REVIEW   

Minerva Ginecologica 2020 June;72(3):157-64

DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4784.20.04535-9

Copyright © 2020 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

lingua: Inglese

Diagnostic value of sonographic fetal anthropometries and anthropometric formulas to identify macrosomia: a meta-analysis

Eita GOTO ✉

Department of Medicine and Public Health, Nagoya Medical Science Research Institute, Nagoya, Japan

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluated whether sonographic fetal anthropometries and anthropometric formulas can identify macrosomia, with increases in mortality and morbidity rates in infanthood and probably later in life.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Meta-analysis including good-quality studies determined summarized sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios (PLR and NLR, respectively) and area under the curve (AUC). PLR and NLR divided informational usability into exclusion and confirmation strategies (100.1), exclusion strategies only (10>PLR and NLR<0.1), or neither exclusion nor confirmation strategies (10>PLR and NLR>0.1). Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were performed.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Abdominal circumference showed moderately high sensitivity and moderately high specificity (N.=4). However, informational usability classified it as a neither exclusion nor confirmation strategy. Anthropometric formulas showed high specificity (N.=21). However, use of anthropometric formulas showed low sensitivity, and informational usability classified it as a neither exclusion nor confirmation strategy. On the other hand, limiting to Hadlock IV (1985) formula changed this to a confirmation strategy only (N.=7). Hadlock IV (1985) formula versus other formulas may have been a true confounder.
CONCLUSIONS: Abdominal circumference and varying anthropometric formulas are not highly useful for identification of macrosomia. However, Hadlock IV (1985) formula may be useful for secondary screening of macrosomia.

KEY WORDS: Birth weight; Fetal macrosomia; Meta-analysis; Sensitivity and specificity; Ultrasonography