Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Feb;39(2):341-350.
doi: 10.1002/jum.15112. Epub 2019 Aug 22.

Ultrasound Fetal Weight Estimation in Diabetic Pregnancies

Jutta Pretscher  1 , Sven Kehl  1 , Florian M Stumpfe  1 , Andreas Mayr  2 , Matthias Schmid  2 , Ralf L Schild  3 , Matthias W Beckmann  1 , Florian Faschingbauer  1
Affiliations

Ultrasound Fetal Weight Estimation in Diabetic Pregnancies

Jutta Pretscher et al. J Ultrasound Med. 2020 Feb.

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate different formulas for estimating fetal weight in diabetic pregnancies.

Methods: This retrospective study evaluated the precision of ultrasound fetal weight estimation in 756 pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes between 2002 and 2016. The estimated fetal weights (EFWs) were obtained within 7 days of delivery from 10 weight estimation formulas and were compared with pair-wise matched controls from 15,701 patients. The precision of the evaluated formulas for EFW was analyzed by median absolute percentage errors (MAPEs), mean percentage errors (MPEs), and proportions of estimates within 10% of actual birth weight.

Results: Among the tested formulas, the lowest MAPE was detected with formula I of Hadlock et al (Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 151:333-337), and the formula of Schild et al (Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 23:30-35) had the highest proportion of estimates within the 10% range. The EFW in diabetic patients showed a slight trend toward overestimation in comparison with the matched controls (MPE estimates showed a trend toward more positive values). In most of the EFW formulas that were evaluated, no significant differences were detected in MAPEs and estimates within the 10% range. The MPE estimates with most formulas in both groups were close to zero. Overall, the differences between most of the evaluated formulas were small.

Conclusions: Little evidence was found for differences in the accuracy of the EFW in diabetic pregnancies and controls. The Hadlock I formula showed the lowest MAPE, and the Schild formula had the highest proportion of estimates within the 10% range.

Keywords: fetal weight estimation; gestational diabetes; obstetrics.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Boulet SL, Alexander GR, Salihu HM, Pass M. Macrosomic births in the united states: determinants, outcomes, and proposed grades of risk. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188:1372-1388.
    1. Dudley NJ. A systematic review of the ultrasound estimation of fetal weight. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 25:80-99.
    1. Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Sharman RS, Deter RL, Park SK. Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements: a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 151:333-337.
    1. Shepard MJ, Richards VA, Berkowitz RL, Warsof SL, Hobbins JC. An evaluation of two equations for predicting fetal weight by ultrasound. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982; 142:47-54.
    1. Faschingbauer F, Mayr A, Geipel A, et al. A new sonographic weight estimation formula for fetuses with congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Ultraschall Med 2015; 36:284-289.

LinkOut - more resources