JUM
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Order Full text via Infotrieve
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ferrero, A.
Right arrow Articles by Pachi, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ferrero, A.
Right arrow Articles by Pachi, A.

Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine, Vol 13, Issue 11 823-833, Copyright © 1994 by American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Regression formula for estimation of fetal weight with use of abdominal circumference and femur length: a prospective study

A. Ferrero, E. Maggi, A. Giancotti, F. Torcia and A. Pachi
II Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Rome, La Sapienza, Italy.

Ultrasonographic fetal measurements from 293 singleton pregnancies were obtained within 7 days of delivery. Biparietal diameter, abdominal circumference, femur length, and actual birth weight data of the first 93 fetuses in the study were used as variables to determine the best mathematical model for relating estimated fetal weight to biparietal diameter, abdominal circumference, and femur length. With the aid of a computer, three regression equations were derived. The best model was Log10 (weight) = 0.77125 + 0.13244 (AC) - 0.12996 (FL) - 1.73588 (AC x AC)/1000 + 3.09212 (FL x AC)/1000 + 2.18984 (FL/AC); (R2 = 0.987). The accuracy of this formula was then compared prospectively, first with the formulas published by Shepard and coworkers, Rose and McCallum, and Hadlock and colleagues in the entire sample of 200 patients, second in 46 large, 101 appropriate, and 53 small for gestational age fetuses, and then in 44 fetuses of pregnancy complicated by diabetes. The difference between actual and estimated birth weights generated by the study formula had no systematic error (Student's t-test, P > 0.05) in cumulative data, and in small or appropriate and large for gestational age fetuses. As this derived formula is very cumbersome to manipulate, tables have been prepared with computer assistance to read the estimated fetal weight directly.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Obstet GynecolHome page
M. Scioscia, A. Vimercati, O. Ceci, M. Vicino, and L. E. Selvaggi
Estimation of Birth Weight by Two-Dimensional Ultrasonography: A Critical Appraisal of Its Accuracy
Obstet. Gynecol., January 1, 2008; 111(1): 57 - 65.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1994 by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.