Comparison of Errors of 35 Weight Estimation Formulae in a Standard Collective

Hoopmann, Markus; Kagan, Karl Oliver; Sauter, Alexander; Abele, Harald; Wagner, Philipp

doi:10.1055/s-0042-118598

Cited by 11 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In our study, estimation of fetal weight with Campbell, Combs and Ott formulae have a tendency to underestimate fetal weight, other 8 formulae overestimate fetal weight. These results contrast with Hoopmann et al study [17], where the majority of the tested formulae gave underestimations of the actual birth weight. Analysis of 3D formulas [5] shows higher accuracy of 3D Schild formula compared to Hadlock4 in group of fetuses between 2500g and 3000g (mean absolute percentage error 5.3% vs 7.8%) and those between 3500 g and 4000 g (4.8% vs 9.6%).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 90%

“…Although, the highest Spearman correlations belong to Hadlock formulas. Hoopmann et al [17] compared 35 formulae in 3416 fetuses with weight between 2500 g and 4000 g. They determined and compared the mean percentage error, the mean absolute percentage error, also 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 weight.. Halaska formula had the best value of mean absolute percentage error (6.6%).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of eleven commonly used formulae for sonographic estimation of fetal weight in prediction of actual birth weight

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The aim of the study is to compare the accuracy of 11 formulas in predicting fetal weight. Material and methods: The study includes 1072 pregnant women of gestational age from 28 to 42 weeks, who gave birth between January and June 2017. Pregnant women were divided into five groups; group 1, where actual birth weight (ABW) was less than 2500 g, group 2, where ABW was between 2500-4000 g, group 3, where ABW was above 4000 g. Group 4-newborns with birth weight under 10 percentile and group 5-newborns with birth weight above 90 percentile. The accuracy of the estimated fetal weight (EFW) was assessed by calculating absolute percentage error (APE) and 'limits-of-agreement'. R Spearman correlation was utilized between EFW and ABW. Results: The most accurate formula for group 1 is Hadlock3 (MAPE = 7.04%), the narrowest limits of agreement has Combs-[mean (SD): 99.41 g (269.57 g)]. For group 2, the lowest MAPE (5.43%) has Ott, the narrowest limits of agreement belongs to Combs-[mean (SD):-101.36 g (275.88 g)]. For group 3 is Hadlock3 (MAPE = 5.79%), the narrowest limits of agreement has Hadlock5 [mean (SD):-637.32 g (209.59 g)]. For group 4 is Combs (MAPE = 7.72%), the narrowest limits of agreement has Combs [mean (SD): 195.77 g (264.97 g)]. For gr oup 5 is Warsof2 (MAPE = 7.06%), the narrowest limits of agreement has Campbell [mean (SD): 227.81 g (299.26 g)]. Conclusions: Median of absolute percentage error is the most useful parameter to predict birth weight. Each group of fetuses needs different formula to predict the most accurate weight.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of eleven commonly used formulae for sonographic estimation of fetal weight in prediction of actual birth weight

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As Kehl et al already stated in 2012 [34], "weight estimation with conventional biometric parameters by 2D ultrasound has reached its limits". To use the existing formulas more effectively, some authors have favored a "two-step procedure" for fetal weight estimation [35]. In such an approach, in a first step, the weight range is delineated by one or more sonographic parameters (e.g., AC).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does the Porter formula hold its promise? A weight estimation formula for macrosomic fetuses put to the test

Weiss¹,

Enengl²,

Enzelsberger³

et al. 2019

Arch Gynecol Obstet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Estimating fetal weight using ultrasound measurements is an essential task in obstetrics departments. Most of the commonly used weight estimation formulas underestimate fetal weight when the actual birthweight exceeds 4000 g. Porter et al. published a specially designed formula in an attempt to improve detection rates for such macrosomic infants. In this study, we question the usefulness of the Porter formula in clinical practice and draw attention to some critical issues concerning the derivation of specialized formulas of this type. Methods A retrospective cohort study was carried out, including 4654 singleton pregnancies with a birthweight ≥ 3500 g, with ultrasound examinations performed within 14 days before delivery. Fetal weight estimations derived using the Porter and Hadlock formulas were compared. Results Of the macrosomic infants, 27.08% were identified by the Hadlock formula, with a false-positive rate of 4.60%. All macrosomic fetuses were detected using the Porter formula, with a false-positive rate of 100%; 99.96% of all weight estimations using the Porter formula fell within a range of 4300 g ± 10%. The Porter formula only provides macrosomic estimates. Conclusions The Porter formula does not succeed in distinguishing macrosomic from normal-weight fetuses. High-risk fetuses with a birthweight ≥ 4500 g in particular are not detected more precisely than with the Hadlock formula. For these reasons, we believe that the Porter formula should not be used in clinical practice. Newly derived weight estimation formulas for macrosomic fetuses must not be based solely on a macrosomic data set.

show abstract

“…In comparison with a more recent formula (INTERGROWTH‐21), the Hadlock I formula showed a significantly lower MAPE . A recently published trial showed that the Hadlock models reached the lowest MAPEs in 20 weight estimation formulas evaluated in a large population of nearly 3500 fetuses weighing between 2500 and 4000 g in a standard study population . There have been divergent views regarding the accuracy of the EFW in relation to the number of parameters included.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For fetuses in the upper weight range, the formula of Merz et al was included, as it has been shown in several previous studies that this formula is more appropriate for these fetuses . Fetal weight estimation is more precise for male fetuses, and using sex‐specific weight estimation formulas can improve the accuracy of the estimates .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultrasound Fetal Weight Estimation in Diabetic Pregnancies

Pretscher

Kehl

Stumpfe

et al. 2019

J of Ultrasound Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To evaluate different formulas for estimating fetal weight in diabetic pregnancies. Methods This retrospective study evaluated the precision of ultrasound fetal weight estimation in 756 pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes between 2002 and 2016. The estimated fetal weights (EFWs) were obtained within 7 days of delivery from 10 weight estimation formulas and were compared with pair‐wise matched controls from 15,701 patients. The precision of the evaluated formulas for EFW was analyzed by median absolute percentage errors (MAPEs), mean percentage errors (MPEs), and proportions of estimates within 10% of actual birth weight. Results Among the tested formulas, the lowest MAPE was detected with formula I of Hadlock et al (Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 151:333–337), and the formula of Schild et al (Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 23:30–35) had the highest proportion of estimates within the 10% range. The EFW in diabetic patients showed a slight trend toward overestimation in comparison with the matched controls (MPE estimates showed a trend toward more positive values). In most of the EFW formulas that were evaluated, no significant differences were detected in MAPEs and estimates within the 10% range. The MPE estimates with most formulas in both groups were close to zero. Overall, the differences between most of the evaluated formulas were small. Conclusions Little evidence was found for differences in the accuracy of the EFW in diabetic pregnancies and controls. The Hadlock I formula showed the lowest MAPE, and the Schild formula had the highest proportion of estimates within the 10% range.

show abstract

Comparison of Errors of 35 Weight Estimation Formulae in a Standard Collective

Cited by 11 publications

References 49 publications

Comparison of eleven commonly used formulae for sonographic estimation of fetal weight in prediction of actual birth weight

Comparison of eleven commonly used formulae for sonographic estimation of fetal weight in prediction of actual birth weight

Does the Porter formula hold its promise? A weight estimation formula for macrosomic fetuses put to the test

Ultrasound Fetal Weight Estimation in Diabetic Pregnancies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About