Estimation of Fetal Weight and Age Mark A Curran, M.D., F.A.C.O.G.
Very small and very large babies have higher mortality and morbidity rates
than infants of normal size [53]. Because early detection of growth abnormalities may
help to prevent fetal demise and manage perinatal complications more
appropriately , monitoring of fetal growth is an important part of antepartum
care. |
|
All calculations must be confirmed before use. The suggested results are not a substitute for clinical
judgment. Neither Perinatology.com nor any other party involved in the
preparation or publication of this site shall be liable for any special,
consequential, or exemplary damages resulting in whole or part from any user's
use of or reliance upon this material.
Symphysis fundal height ( also known as the fundal
height)
Measurement of the symphysis-fundal height (SFH) is
a common screening method used to estimate the gestational age and fetal growth
after 24 weeks gestation. The SFH is measured using a tape
placed over the mother's abdomen. The mother's bladder should be empty
when the measurement is done. The distance from the top of the
pubic bone (symphysis pubis) to the top of the pregnant uterus (fundus)
is measured in centimeters (cm). The SFH in centimeters
should be equal to the gestational age in weeks. A measurement
discrepancy of more 3 cm is suggestive of a fetus with
growth problems , an abnormal amniotic fluid level , a transverse lie, a
twin pregnancy, or uterine fibroids
[1,7].
The sensitivity of SFH measurement for
detecting abnormal intrauterine growth was less than 35% in one study [2]. Roex A, et.al. found that the sensitivity of
SFH measurement
for detecting fetal growth abnormalities could be improved by serial
plotting of the SFH on customized charts [3].
A Cochrane review concluded "There
is insufficient evidence to determine whether SFH measurement is effective
in detecting IUGR. We cannot therefore recommended any change of current
practice. Further trials are needed." [4]
Risk Factors for a Small for
Gestational Age Neonate [5,20] |
Odds Ratio > 3 |
Odds Ratio > 2 |
Previous stillbirth
|
Maternal SGA
|
Antiphospholipid syndrome (APLS ) |
Chronic hypertension |
Diabetes and vascular disease |
PIH Severe |
Unexplained antepartum hemorrhage |
Preeclampsia |
Renal impairment |
Smoking more than 10 cigarettes per day |
Low maternal weight gain |
Low Pregnancy associated plasma protein-A (PAPP-A) < 0.4
MoM |
Paternal SGA |
Threatened miscarriage |
Low maternal weight gain |
Elevated AFP > 2.0 MoM and hCG > 2.5 MoM |
Cocaine use
|
Echogenic bowel found in the fetus |
Maternal age > 40 years |
|
Previous SGA baby |
|
Daily vigorous exercise |
|
|
When there are factors that increase the risk
for intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) or the SFH is unreliable
because of maternal obesity, twin pregnancy, polyhydramnios, or the presence
of uterine leiomyomas (fibroids) ultrasonography may be a better
screening modality for growth problems in the fetus.
Ultrasound Estimate of Gestational Age and Fetal Growth
Prenatally the sonographically estimated fetal weight is used together
with weight tables to evaluate fetal growth. Correct evaluation depends on
the accuracy of the gestational age being used , the precision of the
weight measurements , and using a weight curve that represents the
population being studied.
Estimate of Gestational Age
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
(ACOG) and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada
recommend ultrasound measurement of the crown rump length (CRL) of the
embryo or fetus as the most accurate method to establish or confirm
gestational age [21,22]. The SOGC recommends the earliest ultrasound
with a crown rump
length equivalent to at least 7 weeks (or 10 mm) should be used to determine
the gestational
age. The SOGC also recommends "...either the best CRL or the average
of several satisfactory measurements should be used." The ACOG recommends
"The measurement used for dating should be the mean of three discrete CRL
measurements when possible..." [21]. It is recommended that crown-rump
length be used up to 84 mm, and other parameters be used for measurements >
84 mm [21, 22].
If the pregnancy is the result of in vitro fertilization
the age of the embryo at the date of transfer should be used to establish
the estimated due date (EDD)
[21].
If the CRL > 84 mm the biparietal diameter (BPD) or
head circumference (HC) is the best predictor of gestational age [25]
. However, using multiple parameters is superior to using a single
parameter to establish a gestational age in the second trimester [23].
Many regression equations are available using various combinations of
parameters to estimate the gestational age. Some clinicians use the unweighted mean of the 4 most commonly used biometric parameters
( biparietal diameter (BPD), head circumference (HC),
abdominal circumference (AC), and femur length (FL) ) to establish a gestational age [22]
Ultrasound Estimate of Fetal Weight
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
Hadlock 1: Log 10 (weight) = 1.304+0.05281*Ac+0.1938*FL
-0.004*AC*FL
Hadlock 2: Log 10 (weight) = 1.335-0.0034*AC*FL+
0.0316*BPD+0.0457*AC +0.1623*FL
Hadlock 3: Log 10 (weight) =1.326-0.00326 *AC*FL+0.0107*HC
+0.0438*AC + 0.158*FL
Hadlock 4: Log10 (weight) =1.3596 -0.00386* AC *
FL+0.0064*HC+0.00061*BPD*AC+ 0.0424*AC+0.174*FL |
Regardless of the formula used the accuracy of the
sonographic estimate of the EFW is affected by supoptimal imaging and
biological variation . In addition the accuracy of the sonographic estimate
decreases with increasing birth weight [26,27] , and tends to be
overestimated in pregnancies suspected of being large for
gestational age (LGA) and underestimated in pregnancies with preterm
premature rupture of membranes (PPROM) and suspected fetal growth
restriction (FGR) [10].
BACK TO TOP OF PAGE
Estimated Gestational Age and Fetal
Weight Calculator
The calculator below uses Hadlock equations to estimate the gestational age [11,12, 46 ] and the Shepard and
Hadlock equations to estimate the fetal weight 12-15]. Select the parameters and corresponding measured values to use,
then press the 'Calculate' button
Evaluation of Fetal Growth
The average singleton fetus weighs about 80 grams (2.8 ounces) by the end of
the first trimester and grows increasingly faster after 22 weeks
to reach a maximum growth rate of almost 220 grams (7.8 ounces) per week by
35 weeks '. Growth then slows down and is about 185 grams (6.5 ounces) per
week by 40 weeks [17].
Dichorionic twins grow at a similar rate to singletons until about 32 weeks
.Thereafter dichorionic twins grow at about 188 grams per week until 37
weeks .Monochorionic twins growth rate growth begins to slow at 28 weeks and
averages about 170 grams per week thereafter until 37 weeks [45]
Estimated Fetal Weight Percentile
After obtaining a reliable gestational age and best estimate of the fetal
weight, a growth chart or weight table may be used
to assign an EFW growth percentile .
Singleton, Twin, and Preemie Growth Charts (click images to enlarge)
BACK TO TOP OF PAGE
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG)
recommends that a fetal abdominal circumference (AC) or estimated fetal
weight (EFW) less than 10th centile can be used to diagnose a small for
gestational age (SGA) fetus. ACOG advises newborns whose birth weight is less than the 10th percentile for gestational
age are considered small for gestational age (SGA) . Whereas a fetus with a
weight that is less than the 10th percentile for its gestational age is considered to have
fetal growth restriction (FGR), also known as intrauterine growth restriction
(IUGR) [5, 7]. Large for gestational age (LGA) is generally used to describe
a birth weight equal to or greater than the 90th percentile for a given
gestational age [29]. However, there is not universal agreement on these
definitions , and some have proposed the 15th and 97th percentiles as more
optimal cut-offs to define SGA and LGA respectively [30].
For comparison , the table below shows the 10th and 90th percentiles for EFW from a
Hadlock fetal growth curve and a neonatal birth weight curve using
U.S. National Center for Health Statistics data from 2011 .
TABLE1.
Gestational Age in
Weeks |
EFW 10th Percentile |
|
EFW 90th percentile |
Hadlock [17] |
Duryea [19] |
Hadlock [17] |
Duryea [19] |
25 |
652 |
584 |
918 |
938 |
26 |
758 |
637 |
1068 |
1080 |
27 |
876 |
719 |
1234 |
1260 |
28 |
1004 |
822 |
1416 |
1462 |
29 |
1145 |
939 |
1613 |
1672 |
30 |
1294 |
1068 |
1824 |
1883 |
31 |
1453 |
1214 |
2049 |
2101 |
32 |
1621 |
1380 |
2285 |
2331 |
33 |
1794 |
1573 |
2530 |
2579 |
34 |
1973 |
1793 |
2781 |
2846 |
35 |
2154 |
2030 |
3036 |
3119 |
36 |
2335 |
2270 |
3291 |
3380 |
37 |
2513 |
2500 |
3543 |
3612 |
38 |
2686 |
2706 |
3786 |
3799 |
39 |
2851 |
2877 |
4019 |
3941 |
40 |
3004 |
3005 |
4234 |
4057 |
As can be seen from the above Table 1, the Hadlock derived fetal weights are
higher than the data derived from the neonatal growth curve until about 37 weeks
gestational age. Ott and more recently Solomon et. al., have
suggested that IUGR is over-represented in premature deliveries and
therefore the fetal growth standards may be more accurate than neonatal
growth standards in evaluating the fetus at risk for IUGR [34,24]. Lackman F et al.,
have also advocated that "...intrauterine growth curves derived from
ultrasonographically estimated fetal weight of continuing pregnancies are more
appropriate than neonatal growth curves to discriminate fetuses and neonates at
higher risk for adverse outcome ." [ 31]
The use of customized fetal growth charts has been proposed to
improve the precision in evaluating fetal growth [5]. Table 2
shows data from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
Fetal Growth Studies which demonstrates the differences in fetal growth between
different races and ethnicities [51] . Not all agree that the
use of custom growth charts improves prediction of perinatal mortality
[6,7, 52,56-58] .
TABLE 2
Gestational Age (weeks) |
EFW 10th Percentile (grams) |
|
AC 10th Percentile (cm) |
White |
Black |
Hispanic |
Asian |
White |
Black |
Hispanic |
Asian |
20 |
289 |
286 |
279 |
275 |
14.06 |
13.74 |
13.8 |
13.92 |
21 |
349 |
342 |
336 |
331 |
15.2 |
14.81 |
14.9 |
15.02 |
22 |
417 |
406 |
400 |
394 |
16.33 |
15.85 |
15.98 |
16.1 |
23 |
495 |
478 |
473 |
466 |
17.44 |
16.88 |
17.04 |
17.15 |
24 |
583 |
559 |
555 |
546 |
18.54 |
17.87 |
18.08 |
18.18 |
25 |
682 |
650 |
646 |
637 |
19.61 |
18.85 |
19.1 |
19.19 |
26 |
791 |
751 |
749 |
740 |
20.66 |
19.81 |
20.1 |
20.18 |
27 |
912 |
863 |
862 |
853 |
21.7 |
20.76 |
21.1 |
21.15 |
28 |
1045 |
985 |
987 |
978 |
22.72 |
21.72 |
22.09 |
22.12 |
29 |
1188 |
1118 |
1123 |
1114 |
23.75 |
22.69 |
23.1 |
23.09 |
30 |
1343 |
1262 |
1270 |
1260 |
24.78 |
23.68 |
24.12 |
24.08 |
31 |
1509 |
1416 |
1428 |
1414 |
25.82 |
24.68 |
25.15 |
25.05 |
32 |
1686 |
1579 |
1595 |
1574 |
26.84 |
25.68 |
26.18 |
26.02 |
33 |
1869 |
1749 |
1769 |
1740 |
27.84 |
26.65 |
27.18 |
26.96 |
34 |
2058 |
1923 |
1947 |
1911 |
28.81 |
27.58 |
28.14 |
27.87 |
35 |
2247 |
2096 |
2125 |
2085 |
29.75 |
28.45 |
29.04 |
28.73 |
36 |
2432 |
2264 |
2298 |
2262 |
30.63 |
29.27 |
29.87 |
29.54 |
37 |
2609 |
2427 |
2463 |
2437 |
31.45 |
30.06 |
30.64 |
30.31 |
38 |
2777 |
2587 |
2621 |
2604 |
32.19 |
30.83 |
31.36 |
31.06 |
39 |
2934 |
2751 |
2774 |
2752 |
32.84 |
31.6 |
32.03 |
31.79 |
40 |
3080 |
2922 |
2923 |
2873 |
33.38 |
32.4 |
32.67 |
32.52 |
See Also World Health Organization Fetal Growth Calculator
The Small Fetus
70% of infants born below the 10th percentile are not at risk for adverse outcomes
[18]. The difference in size between
babies is most often due to constitutional causes such as the size of the baby's
parents, ethnic background , or the sex of the baby . 30% are truly growth
restricted and are at risk for increased perinatal morbidity and mortality.
Fetal Growth Restriction (also known as Intrauterine Growth
Restriction)
The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SGOC) and
the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) define
fetal growth restriction (FGR) as an estimated weight
of < 10th percentile on ultrasound in a fetus that, because of a pathologic process, has not attained its biologically
determined growth potential [36]
The Prospective Observational Trial to Optimize Pediatric Health in
Intrauterine Growth Restriction (IUGR) (PORTO Study) found the presence of an
abnormal umbilical artery Doppler ( pulsatility index >95th centile, absent
end diastolic flow, or
reversed end-diastolic flow) was significantly associated with adverse outcome*,
in FGR fetuses irrespective of EFW percentile or abdominal circumference
measurement. A sonographic EFW < 3rd percentile was consistently associated with
adverse outcome ; all mortalities had EFW< 3rd centile. [8]
*Adverse perinatal outcome was defined as a composite outcome of
intraventricular hemorrhage, periventricular leukomalacia, hypoxic ischemic
encephalopathy, necrotizing enterocolitis, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, sepsis,
and death.
ACOG recommends
"If the ultrasonographically estimated fetal weight is below the 10th percentile
for gestational age, further evaluation should be considered, such as amniotic
fluid assessment and Doppler blood flow studies of the umbilical artery. Because
growth-restricted fetuses have a high incidence of structural and genetic
abnormalities, an ultrasonographic examination of fetal anatomy also is
recommended if not performed already." [7]
Twins
-
Birth weight
discordancy in twins refers to the difference in weight between two twins.
-
Birth weight discordance =(larger twin weight−smaller twin weight) / larger
twin weight×100.
- Among
nonabruption births, Ananth CV et. al., found a birth weight discordancy
of >or=15% among same sex and >or = 30% among different sex twins increased the
risk of stillbirths, neonatal deaths, and preterm births [50]
Selective
intrauterine growth restriction (sIUGR) is present when the fetal weight of one twin is
below the 10th percentile [17] in one twin of a monochorionic twin pregnancy
while the co-twin is of normal size . sIUGR affects 12 - 25 % of monochorionic
(one placenta) twin pregnancies and is thought to be caused by unequal sharing
of the placenta by the twins [9]
Gratacós E, et. .al have suggested fetuses with
sIUGR may be classified into three types based on one of three main umbilical
artery Doppler waveform patterns, as defined by the characteristics of diastolic
flow: positive, persistently absent/reversed or intermittently absent/reversed .
Classification of sIUGR [9]:
-
Type I (positive end-diastolic flow
in the umbilical artery)
-
Type II (AREDF) : persistently absent or
reversed end-diastolic flow
Type III (iAREDF). intermittent
absent or reversed end-diastolic flow in the absence of fetal breathing.
More on fetal growth restriction
The Large Fetus
Large for gestational age generally implies a birth weight equal to or
greater than the 90th percentile for a given gestational age [29] .
Macrosomia "implies growth beyond a specific weight, usually
usually 4,000 grams or 4,500 grams regardless of the gestational age" [29, 35, 36]
, Boulet SL, et al have advocated dividing macrosomia into 3 grades based on
the morbidity and mortality associated with
birth weight ranges above 4000 grams
[33]
-
Grade 1: Birth weight greater than 4000 g .
Increased risks of labor and newborn complications.
-
Grade 2: Birth weight greater than 4500 g .
Increased risk of neonatal morbidity
- Grade 3: Birth weight greater than 5000 g . Increased risk of infant
mortality
Ye J and colleagues have suggested macrosomia be
defined as a birth weight greater than 4300 grams (9 pounds 8 ounces) in Blacks and
Hispanics or 4500 grams (9 pounds 15 ounces) in Whites regardless of gestational
age. In addition a birth weight greater than the 97th percentile for a given gestational age,
irrespective of race is reasonable to define macrosomia [32]
TABLE 3
Gestational Age (weeks) |
EFW 90th Percentile (grams) |
|
EFW 97th Percentile (grams) |
White |
Black |
Hispanic |
Asian |
White |
Black |
Hispanic |
Asian |
20 |
381 |
376 |
379 |
373 |
407 |
401 |
407 |
400 |
21 |
460 |
451 |
456 |
447 |
491 |
481 |
489 |
480 |
22 |
551 |
536 |
544 |
532 |
588 |
572 |
584 |
571 |
23 |
654 |
633 |
643 |
628 |
698 |
676 |
691 |
674 |
24 |
771 |
742 |
755 |
737 |
824 |
792 |
812 |
790 |
25 |
903 |
864 |
882 |
859 |
964 |
923 |
948 |
921 |
26 |
1050 |
1000 |
1023 |
997 |
1121 |
1069 |
1100 |
1069 |
27 |
1212 |
1151 |
1180 |
1149 |
1295 |
1231 |
1270 |
1232 |
28 |
1391 |
1317 |
1353 |
1318 |
1487 |
1409 |
1457 |
1413 |
29 |
1587 |
1498 |
1543 |
1501 |
1697 |
1604 |
1662 |
1609 |
30 |
1799 |
1695 |
1749 |
1698 |
1926 |
1816 |
1885 |
1821 |
31 |
2029 |
1908 |
1971 |
1908 |
2174 |
2045 |
2126 |
2047 |
32 |
2276 |
2135 |
2209 |
2129 |
2441 |
2290 |
2384 |
2284 |
33 |
2537 |
2373 |
2460 |
2360 |
2724 |
2548 |
2657 |
2534 |
34 |
2809 |
2619 |
2719 |
2600 |
3021 |
2816 |
2940 |
2795 |
35 |
3088 |
2868 |
2983 |
2851 |
3326 |
3087 |
3229 |
3067 |
36 |
3368 |
3115 |
3245 |
3111 |
3635 |
3356 |
3517 |
3352 |
37 |
3645 |
3359 |
3502 |
3376 |
3942 |
3624 |
3802 |
3644 |
38 |
3918 |
3605 |
3756 |
3637 |
4246 |
3896 |
4086 |
3933 |
39 |
4186 |
3863 |
4011 |
3884 |
4548 |
4182 |
4372 |
4210 |
40 |
4450 |
4142 |
4273 |
4105 |
4850 |
4494 |
4670 |
4462 |
Risk factors for macrosomia include , but are not limited to,
history of macrosomic baby, excessive weight gain during pregnancy, pre pregnancy
maternal BMI, multiparity, male fetus, post term pregnancy, and diabetes [40-44]
Hoopmann and colleagues compared 36 different weight
formulas for the estimation of fetal weight for the prediction of macrosomia.
They concluded that none of the 36 weight formulas reached a detection
rate and false positive rate for fetuses >or=4,500 g that could lead to clinical
recommendation [37]. Accuracy of the EFW is reported to
be best when examinations are performed within 7 days before delivery [38]. One
study found prenatal ultrasound diagnosis of prediction of birth weight to
be no more accurate than maternal or clinical predictions of infant birth weight [39].
ACOG advises "An accurate diagnosis of macrosomia can
be made only by weighing the newborn after delivery." [55]
Reviewed 3/31/2019
References
1.
Fetal Growth Disorders in Cunningham FG. ed Williams Obstetrics, 22nd ed.,
New York: McGraw-Hill.2005 p 901
2. Sparks TN, et. al., Fundal height: a useful screening tool for fetal
growth?
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2011 May;24(5):708-12. doi:
10.3109/14767058.2010.516285. Epub 2010 Sep 17.
PMID: 20849205
3. Roex A, et.al., Serial plotting on customised fundal height charts results in
doubling of the antenatal detection of small for gestational age fetuses in
nulliparous women. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012 Feb;52(1):78-82. doi:
10.1111/j.1479-828X.2011.01408.xmPMID: 22309365
4. Robert Peter J, et. al., Symphysial fundal height (SFH) measurement in
pregnancy for detecting abnormal fetal growth.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015
Sep 8;9:CD008136. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008136.pub3. PMID: 263461
07
5. The Investigation and Management of the Small–for–Gestational–Age Fetus Royal
College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Green–top Guideline No. 31 February
2013 – January 2014
https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/gtg_31.pdf
6. Hutcheon JA, Zhang X, Cnattingius S, Kramer MS, Platt RW. BJOG. 2008
Oct;115(11):1397-404. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01870.x. PMID: 18823489
7. Fetal growth restriction. Practice Bulletin No. 134. American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2013;121:1122–33.5
8. Unterscheider J, et. al., Optimizing the definition of intrauterine growth
restriction: the multicenter prospective PORTO Study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013
Apr;208(4):290.e1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.02.007.
.PMID 23531326
9 Gratacós E, et. .al. A classification system for selective intrauterine growth
restriction in monochorionic pregnancies according to umbilical artery Doppler
flow in the smaller twin. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Jul;30(1):28-34. PMID:
17542039
10. Ben-Haroush A,et. al., Accuracy of sonographically estimated fetal weight in 840 women with
different pregnancy complications prior to induction of labor..Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Feb;23(2):172-6.PMID
14770399
11.Hadlock FP, et. al., Fetal crown-rump length: reevaluation of relation to
menstrual age (5-18 weeks) with high-resolution real-time US.Radiology. 1992
Feb;182(2):501-5PMID .1732970
12. Hadlock FP, et. al., Estimating fetal age: computer-assisted analysis of
multiple fetal growth parameters.Radiology. 1984 Aug;152(2):497-501.PMID:
6739822
13.Shepard MJ, Richards VA, Berkowitz RL, et al: An evaluationof two equations
for predicting fetal weight by ultrasound. Am J Obstet Gynecol 142:47, 1982
14.Hadlock FP. et al., Sonographic estimation of fetal age and weight. Radiol
Clin North Am. 1990 Jan;28(1):39-50.PMID:
2404304
15. Hadlock FP, et. al., Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head,
body, and femur measurements--a prospective study.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985 Feb
1;151(3):333-7.PMID: 3881966
16. Doubilet PM, Benson CB.Sonographic evaluation of intrauterine growth
retardation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995 Mar;164(3):709-17. PMID: 7863900
17.
Hadlock FP, et al., In utero analysis of fetal growth: a sonographic weight
standard.Radiology. 1991 Oct;181(1):129-33.
PMID: 1887021
18.
Ott WJ.The diagnosis of altered fetal growth.
Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 1988 Jun;15(2):237-63. PMID: 3067166
19. Duryea EL,et al., A revised birth weight reference for the United States.
Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Jul;124(1):16-22.doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000000345.
PMID:24901276
20. Odibo AO, et. al., Evaluating the thresholds of abnormal second trimester
multiple marker screening tests associated with intra-uterine growth
restriction.Am J Perinatol. 2006 Aug;23(6):363-7. Epub 2006 Jul 13.
PMID:16841275
21. Committee opinion no 611: method for estimating due date.American College of Obstetricians and GynecologistsObstet Gynecol. 2014 Oct;124(4):863-6. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000454932.15177.be.
PMID:25244460
22. Determination of Gestational Age
by Ultrasound No. 303, February 2014 Society of Obstetricians and
Gynaecologists of Canada.J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2014;36(2):171–181
http://sogc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/gui303CPG1402E.pdf
23. Hill LM, et. al.,Composite
assessment of gestational age: a comparison of institutionally derived and
published regression equations. Am J Obstet Gynecol.
1992 Feb;166(2):551-5
PMID:1536228
24. Salomon LJ, et. al, Estimation of fetal weight: reference
range at 20-36 weeks' gestation and comparison with actual birth-weight
reference range. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007 May;29(5):550-5.
PMID:17444561
25.
Reddy UM, etr. al. Fetal imaging: executive summary of a joint eunice kennedy
shriver national institute of child health and human development, society for
maternal-fetal medicine, american institute of ultrasound in medicine, american
college of obstetricians and gynecologists, american college of radiology,
society for pediatric radiology, and society of radiologists in ultrasound fetal
imaging workshop. J Ultrasound Med. 2014 May;33(5):745-57.
PMID:24764329
26. Ben-Haroush A, et. al., Fetal weight estimation in diabetic pregnancies and
suspected fetal macrosomia.
J Perinat Med. 2004;32(2):113-21.
PMID:15085885
27. Mongelli M, Benzie R.Ultrasound diagnosis of fetal macrosomia: a comparison
of weight prediction models using computer simulation.Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Oct;26(5):500-3.
PMID:16180258
28. Alsulyman OM, Ouzounian JG, Kjos SL. The accuracy of intrapartum ultrasonographic fetal weight estimation in diabetic
pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997;177:503-506.
.PMID:9322614
29. Fetal Macrosomia Number 22, November 2000 (Reaffirmed 2015) American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Obstet Gynecol.
http://www.acog.org/Resources_And_Publications/Practice_Bulletins/Committee_on_Practice_Bulletins_Obstetrics/Fetal_Macrosomia
30.Xu H, Simonet F, Luo ZC.Optimal birth weight percentile cut-offs in defining small- or
large-for-gestational-age.
Acta Paediatr. 2010 Apr;99(4):550-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2009.01674.x. Epub
2010 Jan 8.PMID:20064130
31. Lackman F, et.al.The risks of spontaneous preterm delivery and perinatal
mortality in relation to size at birth according to fetal versus neonatal growth
standards.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Apr;184(5):946-53. PMID:
PMID:11303203
32. Ye J, et.al., Searching for the definition of macrosomia through an
outcome-based approach. PLoS One. 2014 Jun 18;9(6):e100192. doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0100192. eCollection 2014..249410242
33
Boulet SL, et al., Macrosomic births in the united states: determinants,
outcomes, and proposed grades of risk. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003
May;188(5):1372-8.
PMID:12748514
34. Ott WJ. Intrauterine growth retardation and preterm delivery. Am J Obstet
Gynecol. 1993 Jun;168(6 Pt 1):1710-5; discussion 1715-7.
PMID:8317512
35.
Induction of Labour No. 296, September 2013 (Replaces No. 107, August 2001)
Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. J Obstet Gynaecol Can
2013;35(9) Accessed 2/6/2016 Available At:
http://sogc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/September2013-CPG296-ENG-Online_REV-D.pdf
36.Shoulder Dystocia Green–top Guideline No. 422nd Edition I Royal College of
Obstetricians and Gynaecologists March 2012 Accessed 2/16/2016 Available at:
https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/gtg_42.pdf
36
Intrauterine Growth Restriction: Screening, Diagnosis, and Management. SOGC
Clinical Practice Guideline No. 295, August 2013 Society of Obstetricians and
Gynaecologists of Canada.J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2013;35(8):741–748
http://sogc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/August2013-CPG295-ENG-Revised.pdf
37. Hoopmann M, et. al., Performance of 36 different weight estimation formulae
in fetuses with macrosomia.
Fetal Diagn Ther. 2010;27(4):204-13. doi: 10.1159/000299475. Epub 2010 Jun
3.
PMID:20523027
38. Faschingbauer F, et al. Sonographic weight estimation in fetal macrosomia:
influence of the time interval between estimation and delivery.Arch Gynecol
Obstet. 2015 Jul;292(1):59-67. doi: 10.1007/s00404-014-3604-y. Epub 2014 Dec 23.
PMID:25534163
39. Chauhan SP, et al., Intrapartum clinical, sonographic, and parous patients'
estimates of newborn birth weight.Obstet Gynecol. 1992 Jun;79(6):956-8.
PMID: 1579321
40. Okun N, et al., Relative importance of maternal constitutional factors and glucose
intolerance of pregnancy in the development of newborn macrosomia.J Matern Fetal Med. 1997 Sep-Oct;6(5):285-90.
PMID: 9360188
41.
Nkwabong E, et. al.
J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2015 Jul;65(4):226-9. doi:
10.1007/s13224-014-0586-4. Epub 2014 Jul 5.
PMID:2624398
42.
He XJ, et. al, Is gestational diabetes mellitus an independent risk factor for
macrosomia: a meta-analysis?Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015 Apr;291(4):729-35. doi:
10.1007/s00404-014-3545-5. Epub 2014 Nov 12. PMID:25388922
43. Li G, et. al.,
Prevalence of macrosomia and its risk factors in china: a multicentre survey based on birth data involving 101,723 singleton term infants.
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2014 Jul;28(4):345-50. doi: 10.1111/ppe.12133. Epub 2014 May 28.
PMID:24891149
44.
Koyanagi A, et . al.,
Macrosomia in 23 developing countries: an analysis of a multicountry,
facility-based, cross-sectional survey.
Lancet. 2013 Feb 9;381(9865):476-83. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61605-5.
Epub 2013 Jan 4.PMID:23290494
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)61605-5/fulltext
45. Shivkumar S, et. al., An ultrasound-based fetal weight reference for
twins.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Aug;213(2):224.e1-9. doi:
10.1016/j.ajog.2015.04.015. Epub 2015 Apr 18.
.PMID:25899626
46. Skupski DW, et. al., The NICHD Fetal Growth Studies: Development of a
contemporary formula for estimating gestational age from ultrasound fetal
biometrics American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology Volume 214, Issue 1,
Supplement, Page S74 January 2016 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.10.127
http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(15)01423-4/abstract
49 Breathnach FM, etal., Perinatal Ireland Research Consortium. Definition of
intertwin birth weight discordance.
Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Jul;118(1):94-103.
PMID:21691168
50 Ananth CV, Demissie K, Hanley ML: Birth weight discordancy and adverse
perinatal outcomes among twin
gestations in the United States: the effect of placental abruption. Am J
ObstetGynecol 2003; 188:954.-60 PMID:12712093
51. Buck Louis et al., Racial/ethnic standards for fetal growth: the NICHD
Fetal Growth Studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Oct;213(4):449.e1-449.e41. doi:
10.1016/j.ajog.2015.08.032. PMID:26410205
52. Carberry AE. Customized versus population-based birth weight charts for
the detection of neonatal growth and perinatal morbidity in a cross-sectional
study of term neonates. Am J Epidemiol. 2013;178:1301–1308. PMID:23966560
53. Bukowski R, Hansen NI, Willinger M, Reddy UM, Parker CB, Pinar H, Silver RM, Dudley DJ, Stoll BJ, Saade GR, Koch MA, Rowland Hogue CJ, Varner MW, Conway DL, Coustan D, Goldenberg RL; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Stillbirth Collaborative Research Network. Fetal growth and risk of stillbirth: a population-based case-control study. PLoS Med. 2014 Apr 22;11(4):e1001633. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001633.
PMID:24755550
54. Francis JH, Permezel M, Davey MA. Perinatal mortality by birthweight centile. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2014; 54 (10): 354–9. PMID:24731210
55. Fetal macrosomia. Practice Bulletin No. 173. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2016;128:e195–209.
56. Milner J, Arezina J.The accuracy of ultrasound estimation of fetal weight in comparison to birth weight: A systematic review.Ultrasound. 2018 Feb;26(1):32-41.
PMID:29456581
57. Monier I, Ego A, Benachi A, Ancel PY, Goffinet F, Zeitlin J.Comparison of the Hadlock and INTERGROWTH formulas for calculating estimated fetal weight in a preterm population in France.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Nov;219(5):476.e1-476.e12.PMID:30118693
58. Blue NR, Beddow ME, Savabi M, Katukuri VR, Chao CR.Comparing the Hadlock fetal growth standard to the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development racial/ethnic standard for the prediction of neonatal morbidity and small for gestational age.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Nov;219(5):474.e1-474.e12. PMID:30118689
All calculations must be confirmed before use.
The estimated results are not a substitute for clinical judgment.
Neither perinatology.com or any other individual, organization or other party involved in the preparation or publication of this website shall be liable for any special, consequential, or exemplary damages resulting in whole or part from any use of or reliance upon the results or values generated by the calculators or other information or materials included on this websiteIf you are not willing to accept the terms and conditions in the
Disclaimer
we ask that you do not use this Web Site
|
|