OBJECTIVES: To develop a new formula for ultrasonographic estimation of fetal weight and evaluate the accuracy of this and all previous formulae in the prediction of birth weight. METHODS: The study population consisted of 5163 singleton pregnancies with fetal biometry at 22-43 weeks' gestation and live birth of a phenotypically normal neonate within 2 days of the ultrasound examination. Multivariable fractional polynomial analysis was used to determine the combination of variables that provided the best-fitting models for estimated fetal weight (EFW). A systematic review was also carried out of articles reporting formulae for EFW and comparing EFW to actual birth weight. The accuracy of each model for EFW was assessed by comparing mean percentage error, absolute mean error (AE), proportion of pregnancies with AE ≤ 10% and Euclidean distance. RESULTS: The most accurate models, with the lowest Euclidean distance and highest proportion of AE ≤ 10%, were provided by the formulae incorporating ≥ 3 rather than < 3 biometrical measurements. The systematic review identified 45 studies describing a total of 70 models for EFW by various combinations of measurements of fetal head circumference (HC), biparietal diameter, femur length (FL) and abdominal circumference (AC). The most accurate model with the lowest Euclidean distance and highest proportion of AE ≤ 10% was provided by the formula of Hadlock et al., published in 1985, which incorporated measurements of HC, AC and FL; there was a highly significant linear association between EFW and birth weight (r = 0.959; P < 0.0001), and EFW was within 10% of birth weight in 80% of cases. The performance of the best model developed in this study, utilizing HC, AC and FL, was very similar to that of Hadlock et al. CONCLUSION: Despite many efforts to develop new models for EFW, the one reported in 1985 by Hadlock et al., from measurements of HC, AC and FL, provides the most accurate prediction of birth weight and can be used for assessment of all babies, including those suspected to be either small or large.
OBJECTIVES: To develop a new formula for ultrasonographic estimation of fetal weight and evaluate the accuracy of this and all previous formulae in the prediction of birth weight. METHODS: The study population consisted of 5163 singleton pregnancies with fetal biometry at 22-43 weeks' gestation and live birth of a phenotypically normal neonate within 2 days of the ultrasound examination. Multivariable fractional polynomial analysis was used to determine the combination of variables that provided the best-fitting models for estimated fetal weight (EFW). A systematic review was also carried out of articles reporting formulae for EFW and comparing EFW to actual birth weight. The accuracy of each model for EFW was assessed by comparing mean percentage error, absolute mean error (AE), proportion of pregnancies with AE ≤ 10% and Euclidean distance. RESULTS: The most accurate models, with the lowest Euclidean distance and highest proportion of AE ≤ 10%, were provided by the formulae incorporating ≥ 3 rather than < 3 biometrical measurements. The systematic review identified 45 studies describing a total of 70 models for EFW by various combinations of measurements of fetal head circumference (HC), biparietal diameter, femur length (FL) and abdominal circumference (AC). The most accurate model with the lowest Euclidean distance and highest proportion of AE ≤ 10% was provided by the formula of Hadlock et al., published in 1985, which incorporated measurements of HC, AC and FL; there was a highly significant linear association between EFW and birth weight (r = 0.959; P < 0.0001), and EFW was within 10% of birth weight in 80% of cases. The performance of the best model developed in this study, utilizing HC, AC and FL, was very similar to that of Hadlock et al. CONCLUSION: Despite many efforts to develop new models for EFW, the one reported in 1985 by Hadlock et al., from measurements of HC, AC and FL, provides the most accurate prediction of birth weight and can be used for assessment of all babies, including those suspected to be either small or large.
Authors: Debra Paoletti; Lillian Smyth; Susan Westerway; Jon Hyett; Ritu Mogra; Stephen Haslett; Michael Peek Journal: Australas J Ultrasound Med Date: 2021-08-26
Authors: Stefan Kuhle; Bryan Maguire; Hongqun Zhang; David Hamilton; Alexander C Allen; K S Joseph; Victoria M Allen Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2018-08-15 Impact factor: 3.007