open access

Vol 91, No 1 (2020)
ORIGINAL PAPERS Obstetrics
Published online: 2020-01-31
Get Citation

Comparison of eleven commonly used formulae for sonographic estimation of fetal weight in prediction of actual birth weight

Magdalena Plonka, Marta Bociaga, Malgorzata Radon-Pokracka, Magdalena Nowak, Hubert Huras
DOI: 10.5603/GP.2020.0005
·
Pubmed: 32039463
·
Ginekol Pol 2020;91(1):17-23.

open access

Vol 91, No 1 (2020)
ORIGINAL PAPERS Obstetrics
Published online: 2020-01-31

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of the study is to compare the accuracy of 11 formulas in predicting fetal weight. Material and methods: The study includes 1072 pregnant women of gestational age from 28 to 42 weeks, who gave birth between January and June 2017. Pregnant women were divided into five groups; group 1, where actual birth weight (ABW) was less than 2500 g, group 2, where ABW was between 2500–4000 g, group 3, where ABW was above 4000 g. Group 4 — newborns with birth weight under 10 percentile and group 5 — newborns with birth weight above 90 percentile. The accuracy of the estimated fetal weight (EFW) was assessed by calculating absolute percentage error (APE) and ‘limits-of-agreement’. R Spearman correlation was utilized between EFW and ABW. Results: The most accurate formula for group 1 is Hadlock3 (MAPE = 7.04%), the narrowest limits of agreement has Combs — [mean (SD): 99.41 g (269.57 g)]. For group 2, the lowest MAPE (5.43%) has Ott, the narrowest limits of agreement belongs to Combs – [mean (SD): -101.36 g (275.88 g)] . For group 3 is Hadlock3 (MAPE = 5.79%), the narrowest limits of agreement has Hadlock5 [mean (SD): -637.32 g (209.59 g)]. For group 4 is Combs (MAPE = 7.72%), the narrowest limits of agreement has Combs [mean (SD): 195.77 g (264.97 g)]. For gr oup 5 is Warsof2 (MAPE = 7.06%), the narrowest limits of agreement has Campbell [mean (SD): 227.81 g (299.26 g)]. Conclusions: Median of absolute percentage error is the most useful parameter to predict birth weight. Each group of fetuses needs different formula to predict the most accurate weight.

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of the study is to compare the accuracy of 11 formulas in predicting fetal weight. Material and methods: The study includes 1072 pregnant women of gestational age from 28 to 42 weeks, who gave birth between January and June 2017. Pregnant women were divided into five groups; group 1, where actual birth weight (ABW) was less than 2500 g, group 2, where ABW was between 2500–4000 g, group 3, where ABW was above 4000 g. Group 4 — newborns with birth weight under 10 percentile and group 5 — newborns with birth weight above 90 percentile. The accuracy of the estimated fetal weight (EFW) was assessed by calculating absolute percentage error (APE) and ‘limits-of-agreement’. R Spearman correlation was utilized between EFW and ABW. Results: The most accurate formula for group 1 is Hadlock3 (MAPE = 7.04%), the narrowest limits of agreement has Combs — [mean (SD): 99.41 g (269.57 g)]. For group 2, the lowest MAPE (5.43%) has Ott, the narrowest limits of agreement belongs to Combs – [mean (SD): -101.36 g (275.88 g)] . For group 3 is Hadlock3 (MAPE = 5.79%), the narrowest limits of agreement has Hadlock5 [mean (SD): -637.32 g (209.59 g)]. For group 4 is Combs (MAPE = 7.72%), the narrowest limits of agreement has Combs [mean (SD): 195.77 g (264.97 g)]. For gr oup 5 is Warsof2 (MAPE = 7.06%), the narrowest limits of agreement has Campbell [mean (SD): 227.81 g (299.26 g)]. Conclusions: Median of absolute percentage error is the most useful parameter to predict birth weight. Each group of fetuses needs different formula to predict the most accurate weight.

Get Citation

Keywords

fetal ultrasonography; estimation of fetal weight; Hadlock, SGA; LGA

About this article
Title

Comparison of eleven commonly used formulae for sonographic estimation of fetal weight in prediction of actual birth weight

Journal

Ginekologia Polska

Issue

Vol 91, No 1 (2020)

Pages

17-23

Published online

2020-01-31

DOI

10.5603/GP.2020.0005

Pubmed

32039463

Bibliographic record

Ginekol Pol 2020;91(1):17-23.

Keywords

fetal ultrasonography
estimation of fetal weight
Hadlock
SGA
LGA

Authors

Magdalena Plonka
Marta Bociaga
Malgorzata Radon-Pokracka
Magdalena Nowak
Hubert Huras

References (27)
  1. Boulet SL, Alexander GR, Salihu HM, et al. Macrosomic births in the united states: determinants, outcomes, and proposed grades of risk. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 188(5): 1372–1378.
  2. Ju H, Chadha Y, Donovan T, et al. Fetal macrosomia and pregnancy outcomes. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2009; 49(5): 504–509.
  3. Beune IM, Bloomfield FH, Ganzevoort W, et al. Consensus Based Definition of Growth Restriction in the Newborn. J Pediatr. 2018; 196: 71–76.e1.
  4. Liu J, Wang XF, Wang Y, et al. The incidence rate, high-risk factors, and short- and long-term adverse outcomes of fetal growth restriction: a report from Mainland China. Medicine (Baltimore). 2014; 93(27): e210.
  5. Schild RL, Fimmers R, Hansmann M. Fetal weight estimation by three-dimensional ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 16(5): 445–452.
  6. Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Sharman RS, et al. Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements--a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985; 151(3): 333–337.
  7. Kumara D, Perera H. Evaluation of six commonly used formulae for sonographic estimation of fetal weight in a Sri Lankan population. Sri Lanka Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2010; 31(1): 20.
  8. Charles UE, Kester IE, Kennedy KA, et al. Validity of common ultrasound methods of fetal weight estimation in late pregnancy among women in Kwale, Niger Delta region, Nigeria.
  9. Shepard MJ, Richards VA, Berkowitz RL, et al. An evaluation of two equations for predicting fetal weight by ultrasound. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1982; 142(1): 47–54.
  10. Campbell S, Wilkin D. Ultrasonic measurement of fetal abdomen circumference in the estimation of fetal weight. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1975; 82(9): 689–697.
  11. Warsof SL, Wolf P, Coulehan J, et al. Comparison of fetal weight estimation formulas with and without head measurements. Obstet Gynecol. 1986; 67(4): 569–573.
  12. Combs CA, Jaekle RK, Rosenn B, et al. Sonographic estimation of fetal weight based on a model of fetal volume. Obstet Gynecol. 1993; 82(3): 365–370.
  13. Ott WJ, Doyle S, Flamm S, et al. Accurate ultrasonic estimation of fetal weight. Prospective analysis of new ultrasonic formulas. Am J Perinatol. 1986; 3(4): 307–310.
  14. Bland JM, Altman D. tatistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. The Lancet. 1986; 327(8476): 307–310.
  15. Esinler D, Bircan O, Esin S, et al. Finding the best formula to predict the fetal weight: comparison of 18 formulas. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2015; 80(2): 78–84.
  16. Kong CW, To WW. Comparison of the accuracy of INTERGROWTH-21 formula with other ultrasound formulae in fetal weight estimation. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 58(2): 273–277.
  17. Hoopmann M, Kagan KO, Sauter A, et al. Comparison of Errors of 35 Weight Estimation Formulae in a Standard Collective. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2016; 76(11): 1172–1179.
  18. Farrell T, Holmes R, Stone P. The effect of body mass index on three methods of fetal weight estimation. BJOG. 2002; 109(6): 651–657.
  19. Ott WJ, Doyle S, Flamm S, et al. Accurate ultrasonic estimation of fetal weight. Am J Perinatol. 1985; 2(3): 178–182.
  20. Hart NC, Siemer J, Meurer B, et al. Macrosomia – a new formula for optimized fetal weight estimation. Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde. 2008; 68(S 01).
  21. Faschingbauer F, Voigt F, Goecke TW, et al. Fetal weight estimation in extreme macrosomia (≥ 4,500 g): comparison of 10 formulas. Ultraschall Med. 2012; 33(7): E62–E67.
  22. Melamed N, Ryan G, Windrim R, et al. Choice of Formula and Accuracy of Fetal Weight Estimation in Small-for-Gestational-Age Fetuses. J Ultrasound Med. 2016; 35(1): 71–82.
  23. Scott F, Beeby P, Abbott J, et al. New formula for estimating fetal weight below 1000 g: comparison with existing formulas. J Ultrasound Med. 1996; 15(10): 669–672.
  24. Shen Y, Zhao W, Lin J, et al. Accuracy of sonographic fetal weight estimation prior to delivery in a Chinese han population. J Clin Ultrasound. 2017; 45(8): 465–471.
  25. Aviram A, Yogev Y, Ashwal E, et al. Prediction of large for gestational age by various sonographic fetal weight estimation formulas-which should we use? J Perinatol. 2017; 37(5): 513–517.
  26. Rosati P, Arduini M, Giri C, et al. Ultrasonographic weight estimation in large for gestational age fetuses: a comparison of 17 sonographic formulas and four models algorithms. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2010; 23(7): 675–680.
  27. Hammami A, Mazer Zumaeta A, Syngelaki A, et al. Ultrasonographic estimation of fetal weight: development of new model and assessment of performance of previous models. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 52(1): 35–43.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl