A new mathematical formula to predict the foetal weight in twin pregnancies: A comparison of it with 19 different formulas

Abstract

One hundred and seventy-two twin-pregnant patients were enrolled. The estimated foetal weight was calculated using 19 different formulas. Ong's formula (0.954 (95%CI = 0.938/0.966)), which was designed specifically for twins, produced the highest Cronbach's alpha value followed by Hadlock II (0.952 (95%CI = 0.935/0.965)), Hadlock I (0.952 (95%CI = 0.935/0.964)), Hadlock III (0.952 (95%CI = 0.935/0.964)), Hadlock IV (0.952 (95%CI = 0.935/0.964)) and our formula (0.952 (95%CI = 0.935/0.964)), which produced the same Cronbach's alpha values for twin A. For twin B, our formula produced the highest Cronbach's alpha value (0.961 (95%CI = 0.948/0.972) followed by Hadlock II (0.960 (95%CI = 0.946/0.971)), Hadlock I (0.960 (95%CI = 0.946/0.970)), Hadlock III (0.960 (95%CI = 0.946/0.970)) and Hadlock IV (0.960 (95%CI = 0.946/0.970)). In conclusion, our formula (AC, FL) performed well in predicting the foetal weights in twin pregnancies (>24 weeks) in our study. However, it should be tested in other populations. Hadlock II (AC, FL) produced a comparable performance to Hadlock I (BPD, HC, AC, FL), Hadlock III (BPD, AC, FL) and Hadlock IV (HC, AC, FL). Hadlock II may be preferable in twin pregnancies since it is based on AC and FL only.

Finding the best formulas to estimate fetal weight based on ultrasound for the Turkish population: a comparison of 24 formulas

“…In Table 3 and Table 4, [15] and Combs et al [19] were ranked as the sufficient formulas in estimating fetal weight based on having the low RMSE. Among these formulas, the formula of Esinler et al [23] had the lowest MAPE with the value of 7.2% ± 5.6%, the formula of Hadlock I [12] had the lowest MPE with the value of 0.3% ± 9.8% and the lowest ME with the value of -4.5 gr ± 320.7 gr, the formula of had the highest percentage of estimations within the 15% range of ABW with the value of 91.9% and Pearson's r value between estimations obtained from the formula of Hadlock III [12] and ABW had the highest correlation with the value of 0.701.…”

“…In according to this main criteria, the formulas of Schild et al Male [20], Schild et al Female [20] and Campbell and Wilkin [6] were found as the best formulas for all fetuses, male fetuses, and female fetuses, respectively, in estimating of the fetal weights for Turkish population. Also, as a result of all applications in this study, each of formulas of Schild et al Male [20], Schild et al Female [20], Campbell and Wilkin [6], Hadlock I [12], Hadlock II [12], Hadlock III [12], Hadlock VI [11], Esinler et al [23] and Rose and McCallum [16] had the best accuracy performance depending on at least one criteria that is one of minimum RMSE, minimum MAPE, minimum MPE, minimum ME, maximum r, maximum percents of ±5%, ±10% and ±15% deviations from ABW. On the other hand, the formulas of Higginbottom [8], Shepard et al [9], Hadlock V [12], Vintzileos et al [17] and Hiwale et al [26] were insufficient formulas and the formulas Thurnau et al [10], Weiner I…”

“…Some formulas developed between the years of 1975 and 1993 can be given as Campbell and Wilkin [6], Warsof et al [7], Higginbottom et al [8], Shepard et al [9], Thurnau et al [10], Hadlock V [11], Hadlock VI [11], Hadlock I [12], Hadlock II [12], Hadlock III [12], Hadlock IV [12], Weiner I [13], Weiner II [13], Woo et al [14], Ott et al [15], Rose and McCallum [16], Vintzileos et al [17], Merz I [18], Merz II [18] and Combs [19]. Also, some formulas proposed between the years of 2004 and 2019 can be given as Schild et al-Female [20], Schild et al-Male [20], Hart et al [21], Munim et al [22], Esinler et al [23], Chen et al [24], Lima et al [25] and Hiwale et al [26].…”