+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Comparative study between clinical and sonographic estimation of fetal weight in third trimester of pregnancy and its relationship with actual birth weight



Comparative study between clinical and sonographic estimation of fetal weight in third trimester of pregnancy and its relationship with actual birth weight



Mymensingh Medical Journal 17(2): 157-163



This prospective study was undertaken to assess the accuracy of clinical and sonographic estimated fetal weight (EFW) in Bangladeshi population. The study protocol consisted of achieving clinical followed by sonographic estimated fetal weight (uEFW) using Shepard formula and then its correlation with actual birth weight (BW). A total of 140 pregnant women participated in this study. The study was conducted in the department of Radiology & Imaging and in the department of Gynae & Obs., Bangladesh Medical College Hospital (BMCH) from January 2005 to December 2005.Maximum number of patients belonged to 26-30 years age group and the mean +/-SD age of the study patients was 26.8+/-4.7 years. Maximum number of women (41.4%) was primigravida and 24.3% women were second gravida. The mean+/-SD gestational age of the patient was 35.9+/-2.8 weeks. We found, clinically EFW was 3432.1+/-410.1 gm (mean+/-SD) and uEFW was 2715.4+/-509.1gm (mean+/-SD) with difference 716.7+/-278.5 gm (mean+/-SD), (P<0.001), which is highly significant. Babies who were delivered within 1st week of clinical and sonographic EFW were selected and their weights were compared with actual BW. The Pearson correlation chi square test and student 't' test were the statistical analysis used. It was found that the P value of clinical versus actual BW was <0.05, this was significant. P value of sonographic versus actual BW was >0.05, this was not significant. Percent error (PE) was found 2+/-7.33% in calculating uEFW from actual BW with minimum error -23.9% and maximum error 11.81%. This study conducted on Bangladeshi fetus using the Shepard formula showed that the actual BW recorded after delivery of the fetus is more close to uEFW than clinically EFW.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 052217054

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 18626451


Related references

OC03.03: Sonographic fetal weight estimation compared with actual birth weight in two consecutive deliveries. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 42(S1): 5-6, 2013

Accuracy of clinical and ultrasound estimation of fetal weight in predicting actual birth weight in Enugu, Southeastern Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice 17(3): 270-275, 2014

Comparison of sonographic weight estimation to actual birth weight: a retrospective analysis. Ultraschall in der Medizin 22(4): 167-171, 2001

Deviation of sonographic estimated fetal weight from actual birth weight in two consecutive pregnancies of the same parturients. Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy 37(1): 37-43, 2015

Accuracy of sonographic fetal weight estimation of fetuses with a birth weight of 1500 g or less. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology 153(2): 131-137, 2011

OP27.01: Third trimester fetal arm and thigh fat mass: their relationship to estimated fetal weight, birth weight and neonatal body composition. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 34(S1): 149-149, 2009

A comparison of sonographic estimation of fetal weight and obstetrically determined gestational age in the prediction of neonatal outcome for the very low-birth weight fetus. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 152(1): 47-50, 1985

Sonographic fetal weight estimation in prolonged pregnancy: comparative study of two- and three-dimensional methods. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 33(3): 295-300, 2010

What is the clinical implication of sonographic weight estimation errors in the low birth weight fetus?. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 168(1 PART 2): 351, 1993

Circulating levels of pregnancy-specific beta1-glycoprotein and human placental lactogen in the third trimester of pregnancy: their relationship to parity, birth weight, and placental weight. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 84(9): 642-647, 1977

Circulating levels of pregnancy specific beta 1 glyco protein and human placental lactogen in the 3rd trimester of pregnancy their relationship to parity birth weight and placental weight. British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 84(9): 642-647, 1977

Relationship Between Third-Trimester Sonographic Estimate of Fetal Weight and Mode of Delivery. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine 35(4): 701-706, 2016

The accuracy of gestation-adjusted projection method in estimating birth weight by sonographic fetal measurements in the third trimester. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand 90(6): 1058-1067, 2007

Sonographic estimation of fetal weight in diabetic pregnancy. British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 99(6): 475-478, 1992

Waist Circumference as a Predictor of Failure of Sonographic Estimation of Fetal Birth Weight. Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation 81(1): 23-27, 2016