Sensitivity and Specificity of Abdominal Circumference as Single Marker in Predicting Macrosomia at Haji Adam Malik Hospital Medan 2017-2021

Johny Marpaung; Vivi Yovita; Dwi  Faradina; Makmur  Sitepu; Yostoto B.  Kaban; Deri  Edianto; Putri C.  Eyanoer

doi:10.3889/oamjms.2023.10318

Authors

Johny Marpaung Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Sumatera Utara, Medan, Indonesia
Vivi Yovita Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Sumatera Utara, Medan, Indonesia
Dwi Faradina Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Sumatera Utara, Medan, Indonesia
Makmur Sitepu Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Sumatera Utara, Medan, Indonesia
Yostoto B. Kaban Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, RSUP. H. Adam Malik, Medan, Indonesia
Deri Edianto Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Sumatera Utara, Medan, Indonesia
Putri C. Eyanoer Department of Community and Preventive Medicine, Universitas Sumatera Utara, Utara, Medan, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2023.10318

Keywords:

Macrosomia, Abdominal circumference, Pregnant woman, Birth weight

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Macrosomia incidence rate seems continue to increase, especially in Indonesia with a fairly high incidence rate, macrosomia is associated with adverse complications; therefore, early detection is recommended so that optimal management can be determined. At present, abdominal circumferences are considered as most predictive of fetal weight and expected to be used for macrosomia screening.

AIM: This research purpose was to determine sensitivity and specificity of Abdominal Circumference (AC) as a single marker in predicting macrosomia at Haji Adam Malik Hospital Medan 2017–2021.

METHODS: This research is an analytical study with diagnostic test of secondary data from medical records on February 7, 2022–April 30, 2022. Research sample was pregnant women with macrosomia or non-macrosomia fetuses who gave birth in obstetrics department at H. Adam Malik Hospital Medan and met inclusion criteria. Calculation sensitivity and specificity of AC values was carried out to diagnose macrosomia. An analysis of area under the curve (AUC) curve will be carried out to determine cut off AC value in diagnosing macrosomia.

RESULTS: Based on ROC curve, AUC is 0.923 which means AC can diagnose macrosomia by 92.3%. After calculation of sensitivity and specificity values, it was found that AC value with cut off 34.56 had sensitivity 83% and specificity 89% in predicting macrosomia.

CONCLUSION: AC measurement is considered most effective method for predict baby’s birth weight with fairly good level of sensitivity (83%) and specificity (89%).

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Plum Analytics Artifact Widget Block

References

Practice bulletin No. 173 summary: Fetal macrosomia. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(5):1191-2. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001762 PMid:27776066 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001762

Ministry of Health Indonesia. Integrated Antenatal Care Guidelines. Director General of Public Health Development. Jakarta: Ministry of Health Republic of Indonesia. 2015. [Pedoman Pelayanan Antenatal Terpadu. Direktur Jenderal Bina Kesehatan Masyarakat. Kementerian Kesehatan Republik Indonesia].

Said AS, Manji KP. Risk factor and outcomes of fetal macrosomia in a tertiary centre in Tanzania: A case-control study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16(1):243. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-1044-3 PMid:27557930 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-1044-3

Glodean DM, Miclea D, Popa AR. Macrosomia a systemic review of recent literature. Rom J Diabetes Nutr Metab Dis. 2018;25(2):187-95. https://doi.org/10.2478/rjdnmd-2018-0022 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/rjdnmd-2018-0022

Fajriana N. Macrosomia baby Risk Factors [“Faktor Resiko Bayi Makrosomia”], Skripsi. Universitas Negeri Semarang. 2019. Available from: https://www.lib.unnes. ac.id/36381/1/6411415019_Optimized.pdf [Last accessed on 2022 May 25].

Simanjuntak LJ, Simanjuntak PA. Comparison of Johnson’s formula and Risanto’s formula in determining interpretation of fetal weight in pregnant women with overweight [“Perbandingan rumus Johnson dan rumus Risanto dalam menentukan tafsiran berat janin pada ibu hamil dengan berat badan berlebih”]. Nommensen J Med. 2020;5(2):24-7. https://doi.org/10.36655/njm.v5i2.139 DOI: https://doi.org/10.36655/njm.v5i2.139

Nithya J, Madheswaran M. Detection of Intrauterine Growth Retardation using Fetal Abdominal Circumference. In: International Conference on Computer Technology and Development. Malaysia: IEEE; 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCTD.2009.213

Abdella RM, Ahmed SA, Moustafa MI. Sonographic of fetal abdominal circumference and cerebroplacental doppler indices for prediction of fetal macrosomia in full term pregnant woman. Cohort study. Middle East Fertil Soc J. 2013;19(1):69-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mefs.2013.04.008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mefs.2013.04.008

Biratu AK, Wakgari N, Jikamo B. Magnitude of fetal macrosomia and its associated factors at public health institutions of Hawassa CITY, Southern Ethiopia. BMC Res Notes. 2018;11(1):888. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-018-4005-2 PMid:30545390 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-018-4005-2

Chaabane K, Trigui K, Louati D, Kebaili S, Gassara H, Dammak A, et al. Antenatal macrosomia prediction using sonographic fetal abdominal circumference in South Tunisia. Pan Afr Med J. 2013;14:111. https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2013.14.111.1979 PMid:23717725 DOI: https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2013.14.111.1979

Li G, Kong L, Li Z, Zhang L, Fan L, Zou L, et al. Prevalence of macrosomia and its risk factor in China: A multicentre survey based on birth data involving 101 723 singleton term infants. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2014;28(4):345-50. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppe.12133 PMid:24891149 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ppe.12133

Campbell S, Wilkin D. Ultrasonic measurement of fetal abdomen circumference in the estimation of fetal weight. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1975;82(9):689-97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1975.tb00708.x PMid:1101942 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1975.tb00708.x

Smith GC, Smith MF, McNay MB, Fleming JE. The relation between fetal abdominal circumference and birthweight: Finding in 3512 pregnancies. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;104(2):186-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1997.tb11042.x PMid:9070136 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1997.tb11042.x

Coomarasamy A, Connock M, Thornton J, Khan KS. Accuracy of ultrasound biometry in the prediction of macrosomia: A systemic quantitative review. BJOG. 2005;112(11):1461-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00702.x PMid:16225563 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00702.x

Blue NR, Yordan JM, Holbrook BD, Nirgudkar PA, Mozurkewich EL. Abdominal circumference alone versus estimated fetal weight after 24 weeks to predict small or large for gestational age at birth: A meta-analysis. Am J Perinatol. 2017;34(11):1115-24. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1604059 PMid:28672412 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1604059