Fetal Weight Estimation by Ultrasound: Comparison of 11 Different Formulae and Examiners with Differing Skill Levels

Siemer, J.; Egger, Nico; Hart, N.; Meurer, B.; Müller, Andrijana; Dathe, Olaf; Goecke, TW; Schild, R. L.

doi:10.1055/s-2007-963165

Cited by 67 publications

(83 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This corresponds to the expected values from comparable preliminary work. The majority of the weight estimation formulae were developed for average infants weighing between 2500-4000 g and exhibited thereby a relatively low absolute percentage error of between 6-10 %, just as in our series [40][41][42]. Merely 5 formulae consistently showed overestimations of weight.…”

supporting

confidence: 49%

“…There are numerous possibilities to improve the weight estimations. With regard to the accuracy of sonographic measurements, several studies have shown that practical sonographic experience or, respectively, targeted training on patients or simulators can reduce the errors [41,43]. Also a time window between measurements and delivery of ≤ 7 days can help to reduce errors [44].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Hoopmann

Kagan

Sauter

et al. 2016

Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 cur-

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 49%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Hoopmann

Kagan

Sauter

et al. 2016

Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Seventeen studies tried to evaluate the best formula for FWE [6,7,9,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24] (table 4). The most frequently examined formulas are those of Hadlock, which were compared to other formulas in all studies listed above, except in the study by Mills et al [9] who only compared two formulas (Shepard and Warsof).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors Influencing the Accuracy of Fetal Weight Estimation with a Focus on Preterm Birth at the Limit of Viability: A Systematic Literature Review

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Fetal weight estimation (FWE) is an important factor for clinical management decisions, especially in imminent preterm birth at the limit of viability between 23^0/7 and 26^0/7 weeks of gestation. It is crucial to detect and eliminate factors that have a negative impact on the accuracy of FWE. Data Sources: In this systematic literature review, we investigated 14 factors that may influence the accuracy of FWE, in particular in preterm neonates born at the limit of viability. Results: We found that gestational age, maternal body mass index, amniotic fluid index and ruptured membranes, presentation of the fetus, location of the placenta and the presence of multiple fetuses do not seem to have an impact on FWE accuracy. The influence of the examiner's grade of experience and that of fetal gender were discussed controversially. Fetal weight, time interval between estimation and delivery and the use of different formulas seem to have an evident effect on FWE accuracy. No results were obtained on the impact of active labor. Discussion: This review reveals that only few studies investigated factors possibly influencing the accuracy of FWE in preterm neonates at the limit of viability. Further research in this specific age group on potential confounding factors is needed.

show abstract

“…Commonly used formulae in different birth weight groups were recently compared to assess whether any of the formulae are more or less favorable. 33 Over the whole weight range and in the subgroup of newborns with a birth weight less than 2500 g, two Hadlock regression formulae (including abdominal circumference, femur length, biparietal diameter with or without head circumference) showed the best levels of accuracy. Infants with a birth weight between 2500 and 3999 g and Ͼ4000 g were best estimated using the gender-specific Schild formula (different formulae for girls and boys) 34 and the Merz's regression formula, respectively.…”

Section: Fetal Growth and Fetal Well-beingmentioning

confidence: 99%