BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
British Journal of Radiology (1992) 65, 987-989
© 1992 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/0007-1285-65-779-987
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nzeh, D. A.
Right arrow Articles by Hunt, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Nzeh, D. A.
Right arrow Articles by Hunt, L.

Prediction of birthweight by fetal ultrasound biometry

D. A. Nzeh, MBBS, FMCR S. Rimmer, FRCR W. M. O. Moore, FRCOG * and L. Hunt, PhD {dagger}

Department of Radiology, St. Mary's Hospital for Women and Children, Manchester, UK * Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, St. Mary's Hospital for Women and Children, Manchester, UK {dagger} Department of Faculty of Medicine and Computational Group, St. Mary's Hospital for Women and Children, Manchester, UK

A total of 104 women with singleton pregnancies who were delivered between 37 and 42 weeks gestation had ultrasound scans during the fortnight before delivery. The biparietal diameter (BPD), abdominal circumference (AC) and femur length (FL) were measured in all cases. Estimation of fetal weight (EFW) was done by four different methods: using AC alone, AC/BPD, AC/FL and AC/BPD/FL. Results were compared with values of actual birthweights at delivery. There was no significant difference between the mean birthweights of the 47 boy and 57 girl fetuses studied. The EFW(Shepard) method showed the least bias overall: mean percentage error 1.7%, standard deviation (SD) 10.6%. The other three methods significantly underestimated birthweights on average: EFW(Deter), mean error 2.2%, SD 9.3%, p < 0.02; EFW (Campbell), mean error 5.4%, SD 9.5%, p < 0.001; EFW(Hadlock), mean error 5.6%, SD 9.3%, p < 0.001. The percentage error in each group was significantly negatively correlated (p < 0.001) with the scan–delivery interval. Two new equations were generated which gave more accurate predictions for the cases under study using AC, BPD and FL as a combination and also in addition to scan–delivery interval (SDI) in days.

Key Words: Birthweight • Fetal biometry

Received for publication August 7, 1991. Revision received December 3, 1991. Accepted for publication June 3, 1992.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 1992 by the British Institute of Radiology.