Analysis of the Performance of 11 Formulae for Fetal Weight Estimation in Preterm Fetuses with Abnormal Doppler Velocimetry – A Retrospective Multicenter Study

Abstract

Análise do desempenho de 11 fórmulas de estimativa de peso fetal em conceptos prematuros com Dopplervelocimetria AbstractObjective To assess 11 formulae commonly used to estimate fetal weight in a population of premature fetuses who had abnormal Doppler velocimetry due to early-onset placental insufficiency. The performance of each formula was evaluated in subgroups of fetuses with expected growth and intrauterine growth restriction.Methods Data were collected from fetuses and mothers who delivered at three Brazilian hospitals between November 2002 and December 2013. We used the following formulae: Campbell; Hadlock I, II, III, IV and V; Shepard; Warsof; Weiner I and II; and Woo III.Results We analyzed 194 fetuses. Of these, 116 (59.8%) were considered appropriate for gestational age (AGA), and 103 (53.1%) were male. The amniotic fluid volume was reduced in 87 (44.8%) fetuses, and the umbilical artery Doppler revealed absence or inversion of diastolic flow in 122 (62.9%) cases, and the analysis of the ductus venosus revealed abnormal flow in 60 (34.8%) fetuses. The Hadlock formulae using three or four fetal biometric parameters had low absolute percentage error in the estimated fetal weight among preterm fetuses with abnormal Doppler studies who were born within 5 days of the ultrasound evaluation. The results were not influenced by the clinical and ultrasound parameters often found in early-onset placental insufficiency.Conclusion In this study, the formulae with the best performance for fetal weight estimation in the analyzed population were Hadlock I and IV, which use four and three fetal biometric parameters respectively to estimate the weight of preterm fetuses with abnormal Doppler studies.

Correlation of ultrasonographic estimated fetal weight with actual birth weight at a rural setting

“…Results showed that the difference of fetal weight estimated by shepherd's method is closer to the actual compared with Hadlock method. These findings are consistent with the results of studies done previously by Ratanasiri T et al, Eze CU et al, Joshi A et al, Yadav R and Lima AMH et al [12][13][14][15][16] By using paired sample correlation for Estimated fetal weight, the correlation between estimated fetal weight by Hadlock and actual fetal weight is greater than the correlation between estimated fetal weight by shepherd's and actual fetal weight, this signifies that the estimated fetal weight by Hadlock is better than estimated fetal weight by shepherd's. From standard deviation, the estimation by Hadlock is centralized to the mean more than that estimated by Shephard's.…”

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

“…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].…”