Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Neonatal Anthropometric Measurements to Predict Birth Weight by Ultrasound

Journal of Perinatology volume 22, pages 397–402 (2002)Cite this article

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To develop a more accurate ultrasound birth weight (BW) model using neonatal anthropometric measurements.

STUDY DESIGN: Two hundred thirty-one newborns were evaluated. Measurements included weight; head, chest, and abdominal circumferences (umbilicus and liver), humerus, and femur lengths. Infants were randomly assigned into two groups (G1 and G2). Anthropometric measurements that are obtainable by ultrasound were generated from G1. Stepwise regression and a bootstrap analysis were used to create the prediction models. The models were validated using G2.

RESULTS: The final stepwise regression model included FL and circumferences of the head, chest, and abdomen. The correlations were: G1: R2=0.91, p<0.001; G2: R2=0.90 p<0.001. There was no difference between derived and actual BW in G1 (p=0.42) or G2 (p=0.28). The mean absolute percent error between the prediction model and actual BW was 3.8%.

CONCLUSION: Neonatal anthropometric models are strongly predictive of actual BW. This model will be tested prospectively using ultrasound to predict fetal weight.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Warsof SL, Gohari P, Berkowitz RL, Hobbins JC . The estimation of fetal weight by computer assisted analysis Am J Obtet Gynecol 1977; 128: 881–92

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Chauhan SP, Hendrix NW, Magann EF, Morrison JC, Kenney SP, Devoe LD . Limitations of clinical and sonographic estimates of birth weight: experience with 1034 parturients Obstet Gynecol 1998 Jan; 91: 1 72–7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. O'Reilly-Green CP, Divon MY . Receiver operating characteristic curves of ultrasonographic estimates of fetal weight for prediction of fetal growth restriction in prolonged pregnancies Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 181: 1133–8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kaaij MW, Struijk PC, Lotgering FK . Accuracy of sonographic estimates of fetal weight in very small infants Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999 Feb; 13: 2 99–102

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sherman DJ, Arieli S, Tovbin J, Siegel G, Caspi E, Bukovsky I . A comparison of clinical and ultrasonic estimation of fetal weight Obstet Gynecol 1998 Feb; 91: 2 212–7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Chauhan SP, West DJ, Scardo JA, Boyd JM, Joiner J, Hendrix NW . Antepartum detection of macrosomic fetus: clinical versus sonographic, including soft-tissue measurements Obstet Gynecol 2000 May; 95: 5 639–42

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Combs CA, Rosenn B, Miodovnik M, Siddiqi TA . Sonographic EFW and macrosomia: is there an optimum formula to predict diabetic fetal macrosomia? J Matern–Fetal Med 2000 Jan–Feb; 9: 1 55–61

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Parry S, Severs CP, Sehdev HM, Macones GA, White LM, Morgan MA . Ultrasonographic prediction of fetal macrosomia. Association with cesarean delivery J Reprod Med 2000 Jan; 45: 1 17–22

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Smith GC, Smith MF, McNay MB, Flemming JE . The relation between fetal abdominal circumference and birthweight: findings in 3512 pregnancies Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997 Feb; 104: 2 186–90

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Barnard Y, Bar-Hava I, Divon MY . Accuracy of intrapartum estimates of fetal weight. Effect of oligohydramnios J Reprod Med 1996 Dec; 41: 12 907–10

    Google Scholar 

  11. Thompson HE, Makowski EL . Estimation of birth weight and gestational age Obstet Gynecol 1971 Jan; 37: 1 44–7

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Catalano PM, Thomas AJ, Avallone DA, Amini SB . Anthropometric estimation of neonatal body composition Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 173: 1176–81

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Jensen RL, Kline GM . The resampling cross-validation technique in exercise science: modelling rowing power Med Sci Sports Exercise July 1994; 26: 7 929–33

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Willocks J, Donald I, Duggan TC, Day N . Foetal cephalometry by ultrasound Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1967; 74: 639

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kohorn ET . An evaluation of ultrasonic fetal cephalometry Am J Obstet Gynecol 1967; 97: 553

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Thompson HE, Holmes JH, Gottesfeld KR, Taylor ES . Fetal development as determined by ultrasonic pulse echo techniques Am J Obstet Gynecol 1965; 92

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Campbell S, Wilkin D . Ultrasonic measurement of fetal abdomen circumference in the estimation of fetal weight Br J Obstet Gynecol 1975; 82: 689–97

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Jordaan HVF . Estimation of fetal weight by ultrasound JCU 1983; 11: 59–66

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Carpenter RJ, Deter RL, Park SK . Sonographic estimation of fetal weight — the value of femur length in addition to head and abdomen measurements Radiology 1984; 150: 535–40

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Supported by The General Clinical Research Center, MetroHealth Medical Center RR 00080, The Perinatal Emphasis Research Center Grant #HD-11089 (P. M. C.) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), RO-1 HD-22965 (P. M. C.), and The Schwartz Center for Nutrition and Metabolism.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Reproductive Biology, Case Western Reserve University at MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Bradley P Stetzer DO, Alicia Thomas MS, RD, Saeid B Amini PhD, MBA, JD & Patrick M Catalano MD

Authors
  1. Bradley P Stetzer DO
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alicia Thomas MS, RD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Saeid B Amini PhD, MBA, JD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Patrick M Catalano MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stetzer, B., Thomas, A., Amini, S. et al. Neonatal Anthropometric Measurements to Predict Birth Weight by Ultrasound. J Perinatol 22, 397–402 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7210754

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7210754

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links