Simultaneously fetal weight was estimated ultra-sonographic ally by Hadlocks formula. Ultrasonography The accuracy within 10% of actual birth weights was 69.5% and 72% for both clinical estimation of fetal weight and ultrasound, respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant . The accuracy of fetal weight estimation using Dares formula is comparable to ultrasound estimates for predicting birth weight at term. Keywords: Estimated fetal weight, Symphysio - fundal height, Abdominal girth, Johnsons formula, Dares formula . Introduction . Background: The estimated accuracy 2. Johnson's formula for estimation of foetal weight in vertex presentation is as follows: Foetal weight (g)=fH (cm)n 155. fH=fundal height and n=12 if vertex is above ischial spine or 11 if
The actual birth weight (ABW) was EFW was estimated by clinical method using Johnsons formula, Hadlocks formula & Dares formula compared with the actual birth weight. and result expressed in grams to estimate foetal weight in uteru at term ,and the estimation correlated well with birth weight (21). These four ultrasound measurements are the ones used most frequently to estimate fetal weight: BPD: Biparietal diameter, or the distance between the sides of the fetus's The sonographic estimation within 10% of the actual birth weight (ABW) of 68.2% was significantly greater than the accuracy of Johnson's (23.6%), Dare's (26.4%), and the combined clinical formulae (27.1%). The clinical methods overestimated the fetal weight. Both methods showed a positive correlation with the ABW. Objective: To make a comparative evaluation of estimated fetal weight with actual birth weight by using: 1. Accurate estimation of fetal weight is very Dare formula (fundal height multiplied by the abdominal circumference in centimeters) was used to calculate the clinical fetal weights in grammes. Aim: The aim of this study was to estimate fetal weight in term pregnancies by various methods and compare it to the actual birth weight in term pregnancy.
the new formula (log e efw = 7.6377445039 + 0.0002951035 maternal weight + 0.0003949464 head circumference + 0.0005241529 abdominal circumference + Birth weight estimates The1st formula for estimating BW was the method of Dare et al. as the product of symphysisFH and AG at the level of the umbilicus measured in cm [17]: BW = FH Objective: This is a prospective study of 200 antenatal women of third trimester with a singleton pregnancy with reliable date/dating scan, with no fetal anomalies, undergoing obstetric scan at In 60.8% cases the difference was The estimated fetal weight is plotted on the reference range for gestational age derived from Cite this article as: Nasir M, Accuracy of fetal weight estimation is of key importance in antenatal care, as well as in the planning and management of labour and mode of delivery [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9].In order to Results: There is significant difference between Johnsons formula for estimation of foetal weight in Between 25 and 35 weeks' gestation, the mean EFW was noticeably larger than was the actual mean birth weight, with discrepancies of up to 16% of birth weight at 30 weeks updates international indexed journal peer reviewed monthly print journal double reviewed refereed & referred international journal journal promoted by indian society for health and Keywords: Fetal weight, Fetal body weight, Birth weight. Their MeanSD actual birth weight was 3343.352432.799 gr, Also, the MeanSD birth weight found by abdominal palpation was 3371.053345.561 gr, MeanSD birth weight by
Ultrasonography: Several formulae have been developed for estimating fetal weight by Dare formula is more accurate in determining the estimated fetal weight compared to Johnson Toshach formula, which is a key element in early labor. Johnsons formulaes co-relates well with actual birth weight (r-0.86; 95% CI: 0.84-0.88), though prediction of fetal weight was slightly on a higher side. In 60.8% cases the difference was within range of 10% and in 84.8% the difference was less than 15%. In practice the most common equations for calculating the estimated fetal weight (EFW) are reported to be the Shepard and Hadlock formulas [5,8,9]: Shepard: Log 10 (weight) = -1.7492+ 0.166*BPD +0.046*AC - 2.646* (AC*BPD)/1,000. H2 formula had a lower accuracy compared to H1 in predicting fetal weight within 15% of birth weight (90.49% vs. 93.44%, p < 0.01 respectively).
Aymphysiofundal height x abdominal girth (dares formulae) 2. like Johnson's formula, Dawn's formula and Dare's formula are used for fetal weight estimation. 1. After the clinical estimations, the patients had ultrasonographic estimations of fetal A er the clinical estimations, This ASUM policy statement on normal ultrasonic fetal Johnsons formulaes co-relates well with actual birth weight (r-0.86; 95% CI: 0.84-0.88), though prediction of fetal weight was slightly on a higher side. clinical methods Dares method is more reliable than Johnsons method in the estimation of fetal weight. (Dares) formula[6], then The present study aims to compare clinical examination and ultrasound methods for the assessment of fetal weight between January 2014 and December 2018 by using the keywords The fetal weight from two measurements estimated automatically according to the Hadlock formula was denoted as EFW1 and EFW2. Hadlocks Formula 10^ (1.335-(0.0034*AC*FL)+(0.0316*BPD)+(0.0457*AC)+(0.1623*FL) The Dare formula (fundal height multiplied by the abdominal circumference in centimeters) was used to calculate the clinical fetal weights in grammes. After the clinical estimations, the patients had ultrasonographic estimations of fetal weight. Using Bland-Altman analysis, the 95% limits This study showed that the clinical methods using Johnson's and Dare's formulae had a significantly higher mean percentage and absolute mean percentage error compared to the Estimated Fetal Weight (EFW) Calculator Normal fetal growth is important not only for a healthy pregnancy, but also for ensuring health and well-being throughout childhood No formula for estimating fetal weight has achieved an accuracy which enables us to recommend its use. Background: Prediction of fetal weight is one of the methods towards effective management of pregnancy and delivery. Radiology 1991; 181: 129-133 . Congenital diaphragmatic hernia is a congenital anomaly in which fetal abdominal organs herniate into the thoracic cavity through a diaphragmatic defect, which can impede fetal lung In addition, since babies of each race and country have different physical characteristics, a formula that gives good results in one country can give unsuccessful results in other countries, In utero analysis of fetal growth: a sonographic weight standard. Dare formula (fundal height multiplied by the abdominal circumference in centimeters) was used to calculate the clin- ical fetal weights in grammes. To assess and compare the accuracy of clinical and sonographic fetal
