Issue: 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 current strategy of a two-stage weight estimation in which a formula is first chosen after a pre-estimation of the weight range.
Issue: 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 current strategy of a two-stage weight estimation in which a formula is first chosen after a pre-estimation of the weight range.
Keywords:
biometry; foetal weight estimation; regression formula
Authors: F Faschingbauer; E Raabe; J Heimrich; C Faschingbauer; M Schmid; A Mayr; R L Schild; M W Beckmann; S Kehl Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 2.344
Authors: Michael George Halaska; Radovan Vlk; Peter Feldmar; Martin Hrehorcak; Michal Krcmar; Hana Mlcochova; Ivana Mala; Lukas Rob Journal: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol Date: 2006-03-10 Impact factor: 2.435
Authors: Christoph Weiss; Sabine Enengl; Simon Hermann Enzelsberger; Richard Bernhard Mayer; Peter Oppelt Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet Date: 2019-12-27 Impact factor: 2.344