Comparison of Johnson’s Method with Hadlock’s Method for Estimation of Fetal Weight in Term Pregnancies

Pradhan, Peru; Neupane, Binita; Shrestha, Sona; Dangal, Ganesh

doi:10.33314/jnhrc.v0i0.1999

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the fetal weight group between 2500-4000 gr, the abdominal palpation had the highest accuracy, consistent with some studies [23,24]. However, in many studies on the normal weight range, the ultrasound Insler's formula is a better method to estimate fetal weight which the results of the present study are not in line with those findings [22,25,26]. Also, in the present study, fetuses with birth weights more than 4000 gr had the highest accuracy in estimating fetal weight by abdominal palpation.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

Estimation of Fetal Weight by Clinical Methods and Ultrasonography and Comparing With Actual Birth Weight

Mossayebnezhad

Niknami

Pakseresht

et al. 2021

J Holist Nurs Midwifery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Assessment of fetal weight is a vital factor in antenatal care, not only in the management of labor and delivery but also in identifying fetal weight disorders. Objective: This study compares the accuracy of clinical methods and ultrasonography in Estimating Fetal Weight (EFW) with Actual Birth Weight (ABW) in term pregnant women. Materials and Methods: This diagnostic test evaluation study was performed on 247 single-term pregnant women admitted to an educational, therapeutic hospital in Rasht City, Iran. In this study, abdominal palpation, Johnson’s formula, Insler’s formula, and ultrasonography were used to estimate fetal weight. One-sample t-test, the Chi-square, and the Bland-Altman plot were used to compare the diagnostic value of fetal weight estimation methods. The accuracy of tests was estimated based on sensitivity and specificity in fetal weight groups (below 2500 g, 2500- 4000 g, and above 4000 g) by the Bland-Altman plot. Results: The participating pregnant women had a Mean±SD age of 28.86±4.24 years, body mass index of 32.98±6.0 kg/m2, and gestational age of 39±1.04 wk. Their Mean±SD actual birth weight was 3343.352±432.799 gr, Also, the Mean±SD birth weight found by abdominal palpation was 3371.053±345.561 gr, Mean±SD birth weight by Johnson’s formula 3041.206 ±411 gr, by Insler’s formula 3556.316±531.567 gr, and by ultrasonography 3294.28±380.09 gr, Based on the one-sample t-test, the abdominal palpation had the lowest (P=0.261), and the Insler’s formula (P=0.001) had the highest difference with the actual birth weight. Regarding the fetal weight groups, Insler’s formula (96.33%) was highly accurate in Low Birth Weight (LBW), but abdominal palpation (91.09%) was more accurate in normal weight and macrosomia (94.72%) groups. There was a significant difference between clinical methods with ABW (P=0.026). Conclusion: Clinical methods are accessible, affordable, and available and can estimate fetal weight in developing countries, especially in our country.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

Estimation of Fetal Weight by Clinical Methods and Ultrasonography and Comparing With Actual Birth Weight

Mossayebnezhad

Niknami

Pakseresht

et al. 2021

J Holist Nurs Midwifery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…6 In the study conducted by Peru Pradhan et al, the Johnson's method of fetal weight estimation was more accurate than Handlock's method. 7 Dare et al found percentage of error between actual and estimated weight to be 20% by AG X SFH method. 8 Nijoku et al reported similar findings with ultrasound estimating that estimating birth weight had the lowest average inaccuracy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative study of clinical assessment of fetal weight estimation using Johnson’s formula and ultrasonographic assessment using Handlock’s formula at or near term and its correlation with its actual birth weight

2024

Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Fetal growth assessment is an important part of antenatal care. Accurate estimation of fetal weight is one of the important aspects in management of labour. Estimation of birth weight by Johnson’s formula based on symphysiofundal height has advantage of speed, economy and general applicability. Obstetric ultrasound can predict fetal weight with a great degree of precision. Methods: The prospective study was conducted at the Department of Obstetrics and Gyenecology, Yenepoya Medical College and Hospital, Mangalore on 100 pregnant women at or near term. Detailed history was taken, general, obstetric and systemic examination was done. Pelvic examination also done. Estimated fetal weight calculated using Johnson’s formula clinically and ultrasound was done to calculate estimated fetal weight using Handlock’s formula and correlated the birth weight calculated by two methods with its actual birth weight. Then the statistical analysis done to estimate the accuracy of two methods in estimated fetal weight. Results: In this study, out of 100 pregnant women, mean actual birth weight was 3041.6gms. Actual birth weight divided into 3 groups 14% birth weight <2.5kg, 73% had 2.5-3.5kg and 13% had >3.5kg. Accuracy of both methods evaluated, ultrasonographic measurement more accurate than clinical estimation but the error with Johnson’s formula was with low birth babies. Conclusions: Estimated fetal weight using Ultrasonographic Handlock’s formula was more accurate than Johnson’s formula. However, the results of Johnson’s formula were comparable to Handlock’s.

show abstract

Validity of sonographic prediction of birth weight

Eze

Cosmas

Nwamba³

et al. 2022

West African Journal of Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Accurate estimation of fetal birth weight is critical in determining the delivery route and management of the neonate. Purpose of Study: The purpose is to determine the accuracy of Hadlock IV, Campbell, and Shepard's algorithm as predictors of birth weight in a cohort of fetuses of Yoruba descent. Materials and Methods: Fetal weight (FW) was estimated in a sample of 384 fetuses using Hadlock IV, Campbell, and Shepard's algorithm while actual birth weight (ABW) was measured. Receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted and used to determine the accuracy and sensitivity of each algorithm. Results: Most babies (84.6%) had normal estimated fetal weight (EFW) and ABW; mean FW = 3.2 ± 0.5 kg); 10% had low weight while 5.5% were macrosomic. While EFW correlated positively and strongly with ABW, the Hadlock IV algorithm had the strongest correlation (r = 0.978). The Hadlock IV, Campbell, and Shepard's algorithms had 92%, 72%, and 56% accuracy within the tenth centile, respectively. At 95% confidence interval, Hadlock IV was the most accurate predictor of normal birth and low birth weight (area under the curve [AUC] =0.91 and 0.94, respectively). Campbell was the most accurate predictor of macrosomia (AUC = 0.89). Conclusion: While Hadlock IV and Campbell algorithm are valid predictors, the Shepard model is a doubtful birth weight predictor among fetuses of Yoruba origin. When there is a need for absolute birth weight values, the Hadlock IV algorithm is preferred for suspected normal and low-weight babies while the Campbell model is preferred for fetuses weighing >4 kg among Yoruba fetuses.

show abstract

Comparison of Johnson’s Method with Hadlock’s Method for Estimation of Fetal Weight in Term Pregnancies

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Estimation of Fetal Weight by Clinical Methods and Ultrasonography and Comparing With Actual Birth Weight

Estimation of Fetal Weight by Clinical Methods and Ultrasonography and Comparing With Actual Birth Weight

Comparative study of clinical assessment of fetal weight estimation using Johnson’s formula and ultrasonographic assessment using Handlock’s formula at or near term and its correlation with its actual birth weight

Validity of sonographic prediction of birth weight

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About