Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

Diagnostic Accuracy of Estimated Fetal Weight Discordance in Predicting Birthweight Discordance in Monochorionic Twins: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Created on 17 Aug 2025

Authors

Jip A Spekman, E J T Joanne Verweij, Femke Slaghekke, Monique C Haak, Chiara C M M Lap, Derek P de Winter, Jeanine M M van Klink, Enrico Lopriore, Sophie G Groene

Published in

Prenatal diagnosis. Aug 16, 2025. Epub Aug 16, 2025.

Abstract

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of sonographic estimated fetal weight discordance (EFWD) ≥ 20% in predicting birthweight discordance (BWD) ≥ 20% (i.e., selective fetal growth restriction [sFGR]) in monochorionic (MC) twin pregnancies.
Retrospective cohort study including uncomplicated MC twin pairs (n = 213) and MC twins with sFGR (n = 134), with available ultrasound within 14 days of birth approximately 2002 and 2023 in our center. Within 14 and 7 days of birth, we calculated sensitivity and specificity. In a subgroup of twins with available ultrasound within 3 days of birth, the absolute error of BWD was calculated (BWD-EFWD).
The sensitivity and specificity of EFWD ≥ 20% within 14 days of birth in predicting BWD ≥ 20% were 84% (95% CI 76-89) and 85% (95% CI 79-89), respectively. Ultrasounds available within 7 days of birth (n = 192/347) showed comparable diagnostic accuracies (sensitivity 85% [95% CI 75-92], and specificity 81% [95% CI 73-88]). Among twins with available ultrasound within 3 days of birth (n = 90/347), the absolute error of BWD was -2.0% (SD 8.0), indicating a mean overestimation of BWD.
In MC twins with sFGR, the accuracy of sonographic EFWD ≥ 20% in predicting BWD ≥ 20%, is relatively high. BWD is overestimated by an average of two percentage points within 3 days of birth.

PMID:
40818062
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 17 Aug 2025.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Reviewers' rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 42
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement