| Peer-Reviewed

Prediction of Birth Weight at Term: Validation of a Clinical Method in a Low Resource Setting

Received: 23 July 2016     Accepted: 5 August 2016     Published: 29 August 2016
Views:       Downloads:
Abstract

Clinical and ultrasound measurement of fetal weight provides a non-invasive and precise way of obtaining information of fetal size. Both low birth weight and macrosomia are associated with increased risk of complications during labor and puerperium. The objective of this study was to determine the accuracy and error in predicting fetal weights in-utero using clinical and ultrasonographic methods of fetal weight estimations. This prospective study was carried out on 200 mothers with singleton term pregnancy admitted for delivery. Accuracy of birth weight estimation was determined by calculating the absolute percentage error and the ratio by percentage of estimate within 10% of actual birth weight. Result: The mean actual birth weight was 3,242 ± 508g. The mean absolute percentage errors of both clinical and ultrasound methods were 11.16% ± 9.48 and 9.036% ± 7.61 respectively and the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.205). The accuracy within 10% of actual birth weights were 69.5% and 72% for both clinical estimation of fetal weight and ultrasound respectively and the difference was not statistically significant (p= 0.755). In both normal fetal weight group and macrosomia, no significant difference was observed in their measure of accuracy. However, in the low birth weight group, ultrasound method was better in predicting the actual birth weight. Conclusion: Clinical method (Dare’s method) is comparable to Hadlock method of predicting birth weight at term. However, when low birth weight is suspected in low resource areas, ultrasound should be recommended for better prediction of fetal weight.

Published in Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics (Volume 4, Issue 4)
DOI 10.11648/j.jgo.20160404.11
Page(s) 19-24
Creative Commons

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

Copyright

Copyright © The Author(s), 2016. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Fetal Weight, Ultrasound, Birth Weight, Hadlock Formula, Calabar, Nigeria

References
[1] Sherman DJ, Arieli S, Torbin J, Siegel G, Gaspi E, Bukovsky I. A. Comparison of clinical and ultrasound estimation of fetal weight. Obstet. Gynaecol. 1998; 9: 212-7.
[2] Watson WJ, Soisson AP, Harlass FE. Estimated weight of the term fetus. Accuracy of ultrasound vs clinical examination. J. Reprod. Med. 1998; 33: 369-71.
[3] Ekele B, Otubu JAM. Maternal and perinatal mortality. In: Textbook of obstetrics and gynecology for medical student. Second edition. Agboola A (ed). Heinemann educational books (Nigeria) plc. 2006; 526-531.
[4] Airede AI. Birth weight of Nigerian newborn infants--a review. West Afr. J. Med. 1995; 14:116-20.
[5] Japareth P, Wihoolphen T. Comparison of the accuracy of fetal weight estimation using clinical and sonographic Methods. J. Med. Assoc. Thai. 2004. 87: 51-7.
[6] Shittu AS, Kuti O, Orji EO. Comparison of clinical and ultrasonographic estimation of fetal weight. Int J GynaecObstet 2005; 90: 140-141.
[7] Dare FO, Ademowore AS, Ifaturoti OO, Nganwuchu A. The value of symphysiofundal height/abdominal girth measurement in predicting fetal weight. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 1990; 31: 243-248.
[8] Joseph G. O, Simon O. E, Felix U. A. The population situation in Cross River state of Nigeria and its implication for socio-economic development: Observation from the 1991 and 2006 censuses. Journal of emerging trends in educational research and policy studies (JETERAPS) 2010; 1: 36-42.
[9] Johnson R. W, Toshach C. E. Estimation of fetal weight using longitudinal mensuration. Am. J. Obstet Gynecol.1954; 68: 891-6.
[10] Joseph WSK. A short history of development of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1998-2002. Available at http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/history1.html. Last revised November, 2006.
[11] Colman A, Maharaj D, Hutton J, Juohy J. Reliability of Ultrasound estimation of fetal weight in term singleton Pregnancy. New Zealand med. J. 2006; 119:124-8.
[12] Klufio C. A. Obesity in pregnancy. In: Comprehensive obstetrics in the tropics. Kwawukume E. Y and Emuveyan EE (Eds). Asante and Hittscher printing press Dansoman (Ghana) 2002; 1: 219-5.
[13] Maria R. T, Nelson S, Jussara L. S, Ana Carolina P. R, Maísa F, Paula R. L. Clinical formulas, mother’s opinion and ultrasound in predicting birth weight. Sao Paulo Med J. 2008; 126: 145-9.
[14] Baum JD, Gussman D, Wirth JC. Clinical estimation of fetal weight vs ultrasound estimation. J. Reprod. Med (united states). 2002; 47:194-8.
[15] Ratanasiri T, Jimpornkul S, Sombooporn W. Comparison of the accuracy of ultrasound fetal weight estimation by using the various equations. J med. Assoc Thai (Thailand), 2002; 85: 962-7.
[16] Banerjee K, Mittal S, Kumar S. Clinical vs. ultrasound evaluation of fetal weight. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004; 86: 41-3.
[17] Chauhan SP, Hendrix NW, Magann EF, Morrison J.C, Jenney S. P, Devoe L. D. Limitations of clinical and sonographic estimates of birth weight: experience with 1034 parturients. ObstetGynecol1998; 91: 72-7.
[18] Johnstone FD, Prescott RJ, Steel JM, Mao JH, Chambers S, Muir N. Clinical and ultrasound prediction of macrosomia in diabetic pregnancy. Br J ObstetGynaecol 1996; 103: 747-54.
Cite This Article
  • APA Style

    Cajethan Ife Emechebe, Charles Obinna Njoku, Jenkins Tobechukwu Ukaga, Edu Michael Eyong, Chinedu Chukwu. (2016). Prediction of Birth Weight at Term: Validation of a Clinical Method in a Low Resource Setting. Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 4(4), 19-24. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jgo.20160404.11

    Copy | Download

    ACS Style

    Cajethan Ife Emechebe; Charles Obinna Njoku; Jenkins Tobechukwu Ukaga; Edu Michael Eyong; Chinedu Chukwu. Prediction of Birth Weight at Term: Validation of a Clinical Method in a Low Resource Setting. J. Gynecol. Obstet. 2016, 4(4), 19-24. doi: 10.11648/j.jgo.20160404.11

    Copy | Download

    AMA Style

    Cajethan Ife Emechebe, Charles Obinna Njoku, Jenkins Tobechukwu Ukaga, Edu Michael Eyong, Chinedu Chukwu. Prediction of Birth Weight at Term: Validation of a Clinical Method in a Low Resource Setting. J Gynecol Obstet. 2016;4(4):19-24. doi: 10.11648/j.jgo.20160404.11

    Copy | Download

  • @article{10.11648/j.jgo.20160404.11,
      author = {Cajethan Ife Emechebe and Charles Obinna Njoku and Jenkins Tobechukwu Ukaga and Edu Michael Eyong and Chinedu Chukwu},
      title = {Prediction of Birth Weight at Term: Validation of a Clinical Method in a Low Resource Setting},
      journal = {Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics},
      volume = {4},
      number = {4},
      pages = {19-24},
      doi = {10.11648/j.jgo.20160404.11},
      url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jgo.20160404.11},
      eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.jgo.20160404.11},
      abstract = {Clinical and ultrasound measurement of fetal weight provides a non-invasive and precise way of obtaining information of fetal size. Both low birth weight and macrosomia are associated with increased risk of complications during labor and puerperium. The objective of this study was to determine the accuracy and error in predicting fetal weights in-utero using clinical and ultrasonographic methods of fetal weight estimations. This prospective study was carried out on 200 mothers with singleton term pregnancy admitted for delivery. Accuracy of birth weight estimation was determined by calculating the absolute percentage error and the ratio by percentage of estimate within 10% of actual birth weight. Result: The mean actual birth weight was 3,242 ± 508g. The mean absolute percentage errors of both clinical and ultrasound methods were 11.16% ± 9.48 and 9.036% ± 7.61 respectively and the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.205). The accuracy within 10% of actual birth weights were 69.5% and 72% for both clinical estimation of fetal weight and ultrasound respectively and the difference was not statistically significant (p= 0.755). In both normal fetal weight group and macrosomia, no significant difference was observed in their measure of accuracy. However, in the low birth weight group, ultrasound method was better in predicting the actual birth weight. Conclusion: Clinical method (Dare’s method) is comparable to Hadlock method of predicting birth weight at term. However, when low birth weight is suspected in low resource areas, ultrasound should be recommended for better prediction of fetal weight.},
     year = {2016}
    }
    

    Copy | Download

  • TY  - JOUR
    T1  - Prediction of Birth Weight at Term: Validation of a Clinical Method in a Low Resource Setting
    AU  - Cajethan Ife Emechebe
    AU  - Charles Obinna Njoku
    AU  - Jenkins Tobechukwu Ukaga
    AU  - Edu Michael Eyong
    AU  - Chinedu Chukwu
    Y1  - 2016/08/29
    PY  - 2016
    N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jgo.20160404.11
    DO  - 10.11648/j.jgo.20160404.11
    T2  - Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics
    JF  - Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics
    JO  - Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics
    SP  - 19
    EP  - 24
    PB  - Science Publishing Group
    SN  - 2376-7820
    UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jgo.20160404.11
    AB  - Clinical and ultrasound measurement of fetal weight provides a non-invasive and precise way of obtaining information of fetal size. Both low birth weight and macrosomia are associated with increased risk of complications during labor and puerperium. The objective of this study was to determine the accuracy and error in predicting fetal weights in-utero using clinical and ultrasonographic methods of fetal weight estimations. This prospective study was carried out on 200 mothers with singleton term pregnancy admitted for delivery. Accuracy of birth weight estimation was determined by calculating the absolute percentage error and the ratio by percentage of estimate within 10% of actual birth weight. Result: The mean actual birth weight was 3,242 ± 508g. The mean absolute percentage errors of both clinical and ultrasound methods were 11.16% ± 9.48 and 9.036% ± 7.61 respectively and the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.205). The accuracy within 10% of actual birth weights were 69.5% and 72% for both clinical estimation of fetal weight and ultrasound respectively and the difference was not statistically significant (p= 0.755). In both normal fetal weight group and macrosomia, no significant difference was observed in their measure of accuracy. However, in the low birth weight group, ultrasound method was better in predicting the actual birth weight. Conclusion: Clinical method (Dare’s method) is comparable to Hadlock method of predicting birth weight at term. However, when low birth weight is suspected in low resource areas, ultrasound should be recommended for better prediction of fetal weight.
    VL  - 4
    IS  - 4
    ER  - 

    Copy | Download

Author Information
  • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Calabar Teaching Hospital (UCTH), Calabar, Nigeria

  • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Calabar Teaching Hospital (UCTH), Calabar, Nigeria

  • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Calabar Teaching Hospital (UCTH), Calabar, Nigeria

  • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Calabar Teaching Hospital (UCTH), Calabar, Nigeria

  • Department of Radiology, University of Calabar Teaching Hospital, Calabar, Nigeria

  • Sections