A study on estimation of fetal weight in term of pregnancy by clinical method and USG and comparison with actual birth weight

Background: Fetal weight estimation is of key importance in the decision -making process for obstetric planning and management.It provides valuable information which aids the physician or midwife to take informed decisions concerning the timing and route of delivery.Aim: 1) To assess fetal weight by clinical methods using Johnson's formula and Dare's formula; 2) To access fetal weight by ultrasound, using Hadlock's formula; 3) To compare the accuracy of estimated fetal weight by USG and clinical methods with actual birth weight.Materials and methods:The study was conducted in 100 pregnant women attending Obstetrics and gynaecology department who came for routine antenatal check up in the period between 2018 -2020 was collected and analysed.The data collection process includes obtaining a detailed history and doing a thorough general physical examination and systematic examination.Abdominal examination was then performed in supine position.Results: In our study multigravida (44%) had mean birth weight of 2955 grams than primigravidas (56%) who had a mean birth weight of 2907gms, which was statistically significant p=0.003.Among weight calculated using USG in 53% of cases 39% had overestimated and 55% had underestimated the fetal weight.Among weight calculated using Johnson method 53% were within 250 grams and 100% were within the range of 1000 grams.So 47% of cases had underestimated and 52% had overestimated fetal weight.Among weight calculated using Dares formula 52% were within 250 grams and 100% of cases were included only when the weight was >1kg hence by our study 72% of cases had overestimated and 27% of cases had underestimated fetal weight.As a result of our study Johnson's method of fetal weight estimation was found to be more reliable in terms of showing less mean error per kg of birth weight and less difference in mean estimated fetal weight from actual birth weight.USG estimated fetal weight was noted to be closer to actual birth weight.Conclusion: In this study, fetal weight estimated by clinical method of USG was compared with actual birth weight.It was found out that USG was found to be more accurate for estimating the fetal birth weight.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
The New Indian Journal of OBGYN
Published
2024-12-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.21276/obgyn.20252024.11.1.18
Primary Topic
Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A study on estimation of fetal weight in term of pregnancy by clinical method and USG and comparison with actual birth weight

Rema V Nair, Sowbharnika CP, Farooq Naeem, Ranita Devi S
The New Indian Journal of OBGYN
Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
article

A study on estimation of fetal weight in term of pregnancy by clinical method and USG and comparison with actual birth weight

Rema V Nair, Sowbharnika CP, Farooq Naeem, Ranita Devi S
article en

Abstract

Background: Fetal weight estimation is of key importance in the decision -making process for obstetric planning and management.It provides valuable information which aids the physician or midwife to take informed decisions concerning the timing and route of delivery.Aim: 1) To assess fetal weight by clinical methods using Johnson's formula and Dare's formula; 2) To access fetal weight by ultrasound, using Hadlock's formula; 3) To compare the accuracy of estimated fetal weight by USG and clinical methods with actual birth weight.Materials and methods:The study was conducted in 100 pregnant women attending Obstetrics and gynaecology department who came for routine antenatal check up in the period between 2018 -2020 was collected and analysed.The data collection process includes obtaining a detailed history and doing a thorough general physical examination and systematic examination.Abdominal examination was then performed in supine position.Results: In our study multigravida (44%) had mean birth weight of 2955 grams than primigravidas (56%) who had a mean birth weight of 2907gms, which was statistically significant p=0.003.Among weight calculated using USG in 53% of cases 39% had overestimated and 55% had underestimated the fetal weight.Among weight calculated using Johnson method 53% were within 250 grams and 100% were within the range of 1000 grams.So 47% of cases had underestimated and 52% had overestimated fetal weight.Among weight calculated using Dares formula 52% were within 250 grams and 100% of cases were included only when the weight was >1kg hence by our study 72% of cases had overestimated and 27% of cases had underestimated fetal weight.As a result of our study Johnson's method of fetal weight estimation was found to be more reliable in terms of showing less mean error per kg of birth weight and less difference in mean estimated fetal weight from actual birth weight.USG estimated fetal weight was noted to be closer to actual birth weight.Conclusion: In this study, fetal weight estimated by clinical method of USG was compared with actual birth weight.It was found out that USG was found to be more accurate for estimating the fetal birth weight.

The New Indian Journal of OBGYNVol. 11(1)
Openalex Percentile: Top 62%
Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

A study on estimation of fetal weight in term of pregnancy by clinical method and USG and comparison with actual birth weight — Rema V Nair, Sowbharnika CP, et al. · The New Indian Journal of OBGYN (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS