CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 537Prenatal Screening and DiagnosticsPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions

A systematic review of the ultrasound estimation of fetal weight

Open access
Dudley, N. J.·2005·Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
DOI 10.1002/uog.1751
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Objectives: The range and use of ultrasound fetal measurements have gradually been extended. Measurements have been combined to estimate fetal weight by mathematically based non‐linear regression analysis or physically based volumetric methods. Fetal weight estimation is inaccurate, with poor sensitivity for prediction of fetal compromise. Several authors have shown the unacceptable level of intra‐ and interobserver variability in fetal measurement and the impact of errors on growth assessment. The aims of this study were to review the available methods and possible sources of inaccuracy. Methods: Four databases were searched for studies comparing ultrasound estimated fetal weight (EFW) with birth weight. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria evaluated 11 different methods. Errors were graphically summarized. Results: No consistently superior method has emerged. Volumetric methods provide some theoretical advantages. Random errors are large and must be reduced if clinical errors are to be avoided. Conclusions: The accuracy of EFW is compromised by large intra‐ and interobserver variability. Efforts must be made to minimize this variability if EFW is to be clinically useful. This may be achieved through averaging of multiple measurements, improvements in image quality, uniform calibration of equipment, careful design and refinement of measurement methods, acknowledgment that there is a long learning curve, and regular audit of measurement quality. Further work to improve the universal validity and accuracy of fetal weight estimation formulae is also required. Copyright © 2004 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/uog.1751

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [39]39. Copyright  2004 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 25: 80-89. 14690705, 2005, 1,
  2. [49]49. Dudley NJ. Know your measurement package. Abstracts of the 30th Annual Meeting of the BMUS, Harrogate, December 1998. Eur J Ultrasound 1999; 8: S26-S27.
  3. [72]72. Roberts AB, Lee AJ, James AG. Ultrasonic estimation of fetal weight: a new predictive model incorporating femur length for the low-birth-weight fetus. J Clin Ultrasound 1985; 13: 555-559.
  4. [74]74. Copyright  2004 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 25: 80-89. 14690705, 2005, 1,

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Dudley, N. J.
Affiliations
Nottingham City Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Dudley, N. J.
ORCID
Dudley, N. J.
Venue
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-10-26
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
80-89
ISSN
  • 0960-7692 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-0705
DOI
10.1002/uog.1751
OpenAlex
W2048521493
Semantic Scholar
7bd31af80ad692706d9ebdee48b76524fbd5241e
Cited by
537
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 38 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 27
FWCI
1.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Pregnancy and preeclampsia studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Keywords
estimated fetal weight, fetal weight estimation, ultrasound fetal biometry, volumetric method, birth weight, measurement error, intraobserver variability, interobserver variability, fetal growth assessment
MeSH terms
Birth Weight, Humans, Infant, Low Birth Weight, Infant, Newborn, Reference Values, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation, Ultrasonography, Prenatal, Fetal Weight, Imaging, Three-Dimensional

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review