title: How good is fetal weight estimation using volumetric methods?
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Birth weight is an important predictive parameter for neonatal morbidity and mortality, and accurate estimation of fetal weight is therefore a valuable tool for determining the further obstetric management. Many sonographic weight formulas have been introduced. Most of these widely accepted formulas were derived from non-linear regression analysis. Only few formulas have been constructed using other methods, such as the physically based volumetric method based on routine two-dimensional biometric parameters in the fetus. The rationale for calculating fetal weight from volumetric measurements was that weight should to be directly proportional to fetal volume. In a recent review by Dudley, this method was considered to have some advantages in comparison with conventional regression formulas. However, to the best of our knowledge, none of the published volumetric formulas has ever been evaluated in a large population of fetuses. The aim of this study was to compare the volumetry-based formulas with widely accepted weight equations derived from regression analysis. We evaluated weight equations over the whole weight range and in specific weight groups in order to find out whether some equations were preferable in the groups tested.
  
  
  METHODS
  3975 pregnancies were included in order to evaluate four conventional formulas and four formulas based on volumetric models. The inclusion criteria were a singleton pregnancy, ultrasound examination with complete biometric parameters within 7 days before delivery, and an absence of structural or chromosomal malformations. The equations were compared over the whole weight range and in specific weight groups.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Over the whole weight range, no single formula was able to offer a substantial advantage. In the small fetus, the Hadlock formula was preferable due to its low level of systematic error. For mid-sized fetuses, the Schild formula should be considered. In macrosomic fetuses, all formulas tended to underestimate the actual birth weight. Here, the best accuracy was achieved using the Merz formula.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Neither a volumetric formula nor a conventional formula proved to be superior over the whole weight range. Within specific weight groups, some formulas showed improved accuracy. However, new approaches such as three-dimensional ultrasonography need to be pursued further in order to achieve better results in fetal weight estimation.
authors.affiliation: Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Mannheim, University Hospital, Mannheim, Germany. joern.sierner@gyn.ma.uni-heidelberg.de
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Siemer
authors.forename: W
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Peter
authors.forename: H
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Zollver
authors.forename: N
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Hart
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Müller
authors.forename: B
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Meurer
authors.forename: T
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Goecke
authors.forename: R L
authors.initials: RL
authors.lastname: Schild
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D001724:Birth Weight; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D018568:Crown-Rump Length; D005260:Female; D020567:Fetal Weight / Q000502:physiology*; D006801:Humans; D007231:Infant, Newborn; D008875:Middle Aged; D011247:Pregnancy; D011263:Pregnancy Trimester, Third; D012016:Reference Values; D012044:Regression Analysis; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D016216:Ultrasonography, Prenatal / Q000379:methods* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D055815:Young Adult