Cited by 18Prenatal Screening and DiagnosticsReproductive System and PregnancyReproductive Health and Contraception

Sonographic Parameters for Prediction of Miscarriage: Role of 3‐Dimensional Volume Measurement

Wie, Jeong Ha, Choe, Suyearn, Kim, Sa Jin, Shin, Jong Chul, Kwon, Ji Young, Park, In Yang·2015·Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the value of volume measurement using 3‐dimensional sonography for prediction of miscarriage. Methods: We prospectively enrolled 188 singleton pregnant women at 5 to 9 weeks' gestation. The 3‐dimensional sonographic gestational sac volume and yolk sac volume were measured together with the fetal heart rate, gestational sac diameter, and yolk sac diameter. For each sonographic parameter, nomograms were created; z scores were calculated for each measurement, and the values were compared between miscarriage and ongoing pregnancy groups. Sonographic parameters for prediction of miscarriage were evaluated by multivariate analysis, and the screening performance was assessed by a receiver operating characteristic curve. Results: Among the 188 pregnancies, 30 (16.0%) had miscarriage. Multivariate analysis showed that fetal heart rate below the 5th percentile (odds ratio, 6.43), gestational sac diameter below the 5th percentile (odds ratio, 4.87), gestational sac volume below the 5th percentile (odds ratio, 5.25), and yolk sac diameter below the 2.5th or above the 97.5th percentile (odds ratio, 15.86) were significant predictors of miscarriage (P= .018;P= .018;P= .033; and P< .001, respectively). At a false‐positive rate of 30%, the detection rate for miscarriage in screening by a combination of fetal heart rate, gestational sac diameter, gestational sac volume, and yolk sac diameter was 77.8%. Conclusions: A small‐for‐gestational‐age gestational sac volume is a significant sonographic predictor of miscarriage, as are fetal bradycardia, a small gestational sac diameter, and a small or large yolk sac diameter.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7863/ultra.15.14.09012

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wie, J. H., Choe, S., Kim, S. J., Shin, J. C., Kwon, J. Y., & Park, I. Y.
Affiliations
Catholic University of Korea (KR)
Corresponding author
  • Kwon, Ji Young
  • Park, In Yang
Venue
Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-08-31
Volume
34
Issue
10
Pages
1777-1784
ISSN
  • 0278-4297 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-9613
OpenAlex
W2112311840
Cited by
17
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
1.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Reproductive System and Pregnancy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
Keywords
miscarriage prediction, early pregnancy, gestational sac volume, yolk sac volume, yolk sac diameter, gestational sac diameter, fetal heart rate, fetal bradycardia, singleton pregnancy
MeSH terms
Abortion, Spontaneous, Adult, Female, Humans, Pregnancy, Prognosis, Risk Factors, Sensitivity and Specificity, Yolk Sac, Reproducibility of Results, Incidence, Ultrasonography, Prenatal, Risk Assessment, Imaging, Three-Dimensional, Republic of Korea, Gestational Sac

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review