OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of various sonographic estimated fetal weight (sEFW) formulas for the prediction of small for gestational age (SGA) neonates. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 6,126 fetal biometrical measurements performed within 3 days of delivery. SGA prediction was evaluated for various sEFW formulas by calculating the sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative predictive value (PPV/NPV), likelihood ratio (+LR/-LR), overall accuracy and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Systematic error, random error, proportion of estimates >10% of birth weights, actual and absolute weight differences were compared between SGA and non-SGA neonates. RESULTS: Overall, 638 (10.4%) neonates were SGA. There was considerable variation among formulas in sensitivity (mean ± SD, 62 ± 14.4%; range, 32.4-91.2), PPV (72.5 ± 10.7%; 45.8-95.6) and +LR (24.2 ± 10.9; 7.2-57.3), mild variation in specificity (96.6 ± 2.7%; 87.4-99.4), NPV (94.6 ± 5.3%; 72.2-98.9) and -LR (0.4 ± 0.1; 0.1-0.7) and minimal variation in AUC (mean, 0.93; range, 0.91-0.93). The majority of formulas had a lower accuracy for the SGA neonates, with systematic error and random error ranging from -4.2 to 14.3% and from 8.4 to 12.9% for SGA, and from -8.7 to 16.1% and from 7.2 to 10.5% for non-SGA, respectively. CONCLUSION: sEFW formulas differ in their accuracy for SGA prediction. In our population, the most accurate formula for SGA prediction was Hadlock's formula utilizing femur length, abdominal and head circumference.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of various sonographic estimated fetal weight (sEFW) formulas for the prediction of small for gestational age (SGA) neonates. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 6,126 fetal biometrical measurements performed within 3 days of delivery. SGA prediction was evaluated for various sEFW formulas by calculating the sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative predictive value (PPV/NPV), likelihood ratio (+LR/-LR), overall accuracy and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Systematic error, random error, proportion of estimates >10% of birth weights, actual and absolute weight differences were compared between SGA and non-SGA neonates. RESULTS: Overall, 638 (10.4%) neonates were SGA. There was considerable variation among formulas in sensitivity (mean ± SD, 62 ± 14.4%; range, 32.4-91.2), PPV (72.5 ± 10.7%; 45.8-95.6) and +LR (24.2 ± 10.9; 7.2-57.3), mild variation in specificity (96.6 ± 2.7%; 87.4-99.4), NPV (94.6 ± 5.3%; 72.2-98.9) and -LR (0.4 ± 0.1; 0.1-0.7) and minimal variation in AUC (mean, 0.93; range, 0.91-0.93). The majority of formulas had a lower accuracy for the SGA neonates, with systematic error and random error ranging from -4.2 to 14.3% and from 8.4 to 12.9% for SGA, and from -8.7 to 16.1% and from 7.2 to 10.5% for non-SGA, respectively. CONCLUSION: sEFW formulas differ in their accuracy for SGA prediction. In our population, the most accurate formula for SGA prediction was Hadlock's formula utilizing femur length, abdominal and head circumference.