Background
To compare the best fetal weight formula with different biometric tables on the weight of Brazilian newborns.
Methods
This observational study has tested the performance of different common fetal weight formulas and biometric tables. Weight estimates were performed by the methods of Warsof
et al
. (1977), Shepard
et al
. (1982), Hadlock
et al
. (1985), Furlan
et al
. (2012) and Stirnemann
et al
. (2017). The biometric tables selected were the following: Snijders and Nicolaides (1994), Hadlock
et al
. (1984), Papageorghiou
et al
. (2014) and Kiserud
et al
. (2016) and correlated to Pedreira
et al
. (2011) database, which was considered the gold standard. Statistical analyses were performed using the mean relative error, average absolute error and the Pearson correlation coefficient (r).
Results
The best r was found when using the Snijders and Nicolaides (1994) biometric table with weight formula by Stirnemann
et al
. (2017). The average relative error was lower when using weight formula by Shepard
et al
. (1982) with biometric tables by Snijders and Nicolaides (1994), Papageorghiou
et al
. (2014) or Kiserud
et al
. (2016). On average, absolute error, the lowest r was obtained for the Furlan
et al
. (2012) weight formula and the Papageorghiou
et al
. (2014) biometric table.
Conclusions
The best correlation was found for biometric table by Snijders and Nicolaides (1994) and fetal weight formula calculation for the estimation of Brazilian newborn weight by Stirnemann
et al
. (2017).