open access
Comparison of eleven commonly used formulae for sonographic estimation of fetal weight in prediction of actual birth weight
Affiliations- Jagiellonian Univeristy Collegium Medicum, Department of Obstertics and Perinatology, Cracow, Poland, Kopernika 23 Street, 31-501 Kraków, Poland
open access
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.
Keywords
fetal ultrasonography; estimation of fetal weight; Hadlock, SGA; LGA
About this articleTitle
Comparison of eleven commonly used formulae for sonographic estimation of fetal weight in prediction of actual birth weight
Journal
Issue
Article type
Research paper
Pages
17-23
Published online
2020-01-31
Page views
1591
Article views/downloads
1385
DOI
Pubmed
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)- 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.
- Ju H, Chadha Y, Donovan T, et al. Fetal macrosomia and pregnancy outcomes. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2009; 49(5): 504–509.
- Beune IM, Bloomfield FH, Ganzevoort W, et al. Consensus Based Definition of Growth Restriction in the Newborn. J Pediatr. 2018; 196: 71–76.e1.
- 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.
- Schild RL, Fimmers R, Hansmann M. Fetal weight estimation by three-dimensional ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 16(5): 445–452.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Bland JM, Altman D. tatistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. The Lancet. 1986; 327(8476): 307–310.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Ott WJ, Doyle S, Flamm S, et al. Accurate ultrasonic estimation of fetal weight. Am J Perinatol. 1985; 2(3): 178–182.
- Hart NC, Siemer J, Meurer B, et al. Macrosomia – a new formula for optimized fetal weight estimation. Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde. 2008; 68(S 01).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
