Cited by 170Prenatal Screening and DiagnosticsPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions

Ultrasonographic estimation of fetal weight: development of new model and assessment of performance of previous models

Open access
Hammami, A., Mazer Zumaeta, A., Syngelaki, A., Akolekar, R., Nicolaides, K. H.·2018·Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

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. Copyright © 2018 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/uog.19066

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The three-parameters (HC, AC, FL) formula reported by Hadlock et al. provided the best fetal weight estimates in a large study cohort.

    “Despite many efforts to develop new models for calculating EFW, the three-parameters (HC, AC, FL) formula reported by Hadlock et al. 25 provided the best fetal weight estimates in a large study cohort 27 , and should be considered the method of choice for assessment of all fetuses, including those suspected to be either small or large 13 .”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 66 · Cited by 170

Authors
Hammami, A., Mazer Zumaeta, A., Syngelaki, A., Akolekar, R., & Nicolaides, K. H.
Affiliations
  • King's College Hospital (GB)
  • Department of Fetal Medicine King's College Hospital London UK
  • Medway Maritime Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Nicolaides, K. H.
Venue
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-06-03
Volume
52
Issue
1
Pages
35-43
ISSN
  • 0960-7692 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-0705
OpenAlex
W2796411956
Cited by
170
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 7
FWCI
21.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Fetal Medicine Foundation (1037116)
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, birth weight prediction, fetal biometry, fractional polynomials, Hadlock formula, head circumference, abdominal circumference, femur length, biparietal diameter, fetal growth assessment, singleton pregnancy
MeSH terms
Biometry, Birth Weight, Female, Femur, Gestational Age, Head, Humans, Predictive Value of Tests, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimesters, Reproducibility of Results, Multivariate Analysis, Ultrasonography, Prenatal, Fetal Weight

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