A simple estimated fetal weight equation based on real-time ultrasound measurements of fetuses less than thirty-four weeks' gestation

Thurnau, Gary R.; Tamura, Ralph K.; Sabbagha, Rudy E.; Depp, O. Richard; Dyer, Alan R.; Larkin, R.; Lee, Timothy J.; Laughlin, Colby L.

doi:10.1016/0002-9378(83)91195-x

Cited by 67 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Burd et al [23] compared the performance of 14 different formulas [2,3,4,7,8,9,10,11,12,14] for prediction of fetal birth weight. They reported that Hadlock III [4 ]showed the best performance according to the bias and precision method.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The estimated fetal weight (EFW) meant physicians could predict an intrauterine growth retardation or macrosomia, and lead to change of clinical management involving induction or delay of labor in deciding the method of delivery. There are several mathematical formulas that use different fetal structures to predict the fetal weight [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. The accuracy and reliability of these formulas may differ and low values can adversely affect physicians' decisions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Finding the Best Formula to Predict the Fetal Weight: Comparison of 18 Formulas

Esinler

Bircan

Esin

et al. 2015

Gynecol Obstet Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: To compare the accuracy of 18 formulas in predicting fetal weight and also to make a comparison of these formulas in low-birth-weight fetuses (<2,500 g) and in fetuses weighing >4,000 g. Methods: Four-hundred-and-ninety-five pregnant patients were enrolled. The estimated fetal weight was calculated using 18 different formulas. The mean percentage error, the mean absolute percentage error and reliability analysis were used to compare the performance of the formulas. Results: The Cronbach's alpha was the highest in the formulas Hadlock I (0.977 (95% CI = 0.972-0.980)), Hadlock III (0.977 (95% CI = 0.972-0.980)) and Ott (0.975 (95% CI = 0.970-0.979)) in all fetuses. It was the highest in formulas Ott (0.383 (95% CI = 0.091-0.581)), Hadlock IV (0.371 (95% CI = 0.074-0.572)) and Combs (0.369 (95% CI = 0.071-0.571)) in fetuses >4,000 g. It was the highest in formulas Coombs (0.957 (95% CI = 0.940-0.569)), Ott (0.956 (95% CI = 0.939-0.968)) and Hadlock IV (95% CI = 0.956 (0.938-0.968)) in fetuses <2,500 g. Conclusion: We noted that formulas Hadlock I, Hadlock III and Ott may be used to predict the estimated fetal weight accurately in all fetuses in our study. Formulas Ott, Hadlock IV and Coombs may be preferred to predict EFW in fetuses <2,500 g and >4,000 g. Better formulas should be developed to predict the fetal weight in fetuses >4,000 g.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Finding the Best Formula to Predict the Fetal Weight: Comparison of 18 Formulas

Esinler

Bircan

Esin

et al. 2015

Gynecol Obstet Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Biometric data on each of the 119 fetuses were used to evaluate the accuracy of ten published fetal weight formulas (table 1). The choice of these formulas was based on the following considerations: (A) the formulas of Campbell [14] and Shepard [2] were the first to be published and have been used as a reference in most studies relating to sonographic estimation of fetal weight; (B) the formulas of Rose [5], Hadlock [3] and Sabbagha [16] are those which, in our experience, show the best accuracy for fetuses born at term or close to term, and (C) the formulas of Weiner [6], Scott [7], Thurnau [8], Mielke [9] and Weinberger [10] were specifically developed for very premature and/or very-low-weight fetuses.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity of Sonographic Formulas for Estimating Fetal Weight below 1,250 g: A Series of 119 Cases

Jouannic

Grangé²,

Goffinet³

et al. 2001

Fetal Diagn Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of sonographic methods for estimating fetal weight <1,250 g on the basis of ten published formulas falling into two principal categories: general formulas applied to all fetuses, and formulas specifically developed for very-low-weight fetuses. Methods: Recent biometric data (obtained less than 7 days before birth) on 119 fetuses weighing <1,250 g were used retrospectively. Estimated fetal weights derived from ten published formulas were compared to actual weights. For each equation, the errors in predicting fetal weight were used to calculate mean percentage error and standard deviation of the mean error. The t test was used to determine whether the mean errors were significatively different from zero. The F test was used to determine if there were significant differences in the standard deviation of the mean errors. Results: The mean birth weight of infants was 956 ± (SD) 183 g at a gestational age of 29 ± (SD) 2.3 weeks. The best three formulas were the Hadlock, Sabbagha and Mielke which generated a mean error of –0.25, 2.81 and 0.29 not statistically different from zero with standard deviations of 13.02, 9.14 and 11.96, which were not statistically different. Conclusion: In our population of very-low-birth-weight infants, the use of specific formulas targeted to those fetuses does not provide a more accurate estimation of fetal weight.

show abstract

“…Trotz ihrer bei unter-und übergewichtigen Kindern bekannten Fehleranfälligkeit, hängen wichtige geburtshilfliche Entscheidungen von ihr ab. In der vorliegenden Arbeit wird die Genauigkeit und die Fehlerverteilung von 35 Gewichtsformeln innerhalb des normalen Gewichtsbereichs von 2500-4000 g untersucht. Ziel der Untersuchung war es, Gewichtsformeln zu finden, die den Anforderungen des klinischen Alltags bestmöglich entsprechen.…”

unclassified

Comparison of Errors of 35 Weight Estimation Formulae in a Standard Collective

Hoopmann

Kagan

Sauter

et al. 2016

Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The estimation of foetal weight is an integral part of prenatal care and obstetric routine. In spite of its known susceptibility to errors in cases of underweight or overweight babies, important obstetric decisions depend on it. In the present contribution we have examined the accuracy and error distribution of 35 weight estimation formulae within the normal weight range of 2500-4000 g. The aim of the study was to identify the weight estimation formulae with the best possible correspondence to the requirements of clinical routine. Materials and Methods: 35 clinically established weight estimation formulae were analysed in 3416 foetuses with weights between 2500 and 4000 g. For this we determined and compared the mean percentage error (MPE), the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), and the proportions of estimates within the error ranges of 5, 10, 20 and 30%. In addition, separate regression lines were calculated for the relationship between estimated and actual birth weights for the weight range 2500-4000 g. The formulae were thus examined for possible inhomogeneities. Results: The lowest MPE were achieved with the Hadlock III and V formulae (0.8%, STW 9.2 % or, respectively, −0.8 %, STW 10.0 %). The lowest absolute error (6.6 %) as well as the most favourable frequency distribution in cases below 5 % and 10 % error (43.9 and 77.5) were seen for the Halaska formula. In graphic representations of the regression lines, 16 formulae revealed a weight overestimation in the lower weight range and an underestimation in the upper range. 14 formulae gave underestimations and merely 5 gave overestimations over the entire tested weight range. Conclusion: The majority of the tested formulae gave underestimations of the actual birth weight over the entire weight range or at least in the upper weight range. This result supports the cur-

show abstract

A simple estimated fetal weight equation based on real-time ultrasound measurements of fetuses less than thirty-four weeks' gestation

Cited by 67 publications

References 6 publications

Finding the Best Formula to Predict the Fetal Weight: Comparison of 18 Formulas

Finding the Best Formula to Predict the Fetal Weight: Comparison of 18 Formulas

Validity of Sonographic Formulas for Estimating Fetal Weight below 1,250 g: A Series of 119 Cases

Comparison of Errors of 35 Weight Estimation Formulae in a Standard Collective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About