International Journal of Infertility & Fetal Medicine

Register      Login

VOLUME 7 , ISSUE 2 ( May-August, 2016 ) > List of Articles


Feasibility of Sonography in estimating Fetal Weight of Low Birth Weight Babies

Lavanya Rai, Sanghamithra Reddy, Shripad Hebbar

Citation Information : Rai L, Reddy S, Hebbar S. Feasibility of Sonography in estimating Fetal Weight of Low Birth Weight Babies. Int J Infertil Fetal Med 2016; 7 (2):42-48.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10016-1126

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-12-2012

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; The Author(s).



Currently available ultrasound-based fetal birth weight estimation methods have been designed for a group of neonates with wide birth weight range and hence are faced with increased error of margin. Whenever there is a need for delivering pregnant woman with small fetus, prior knowledge of approximate fetal weight is of utmost importance for neonatal survival, and an error in this process can result in significant morbidity/mortality to the newborn baby. This necessitates need for the establishment of new birth weight formula exclusively for this subset of fetuses.


To test the accuracy of established formulae in fetuses ≤ 2000 gm at birth in singleton pregnancies. To develop new formula for this group of small fetuses delivering in our institution with maximal accuracy and reliability and to prospectively validate this formula in subsequent set of pregnant cohort.

Materials and methods

The current study was done in two phases: The first phase was a formula derivation phase wherein the four major parameters [biparietal diameter (BPD), head circumference (HC), abdominal circumference (AC), and femur length (FL)] were evaluated from a set of 128 postpartum women who delivered a neonate weighing ≤2 kg within 1 week of ultrasound examination. Stepwise regression analysis using birth weight as dependent parameter and fetal biometric parameters as independent parameters was used to develop the best formula for estimating fetal weight at birth. In the second phase (formula validation phase), the newly derived formula was tested for its accuracy in 31 pregnant women who gave birth to neonates weighing ≤2 kg.


The new formula (log10 [BW] = 1.0131 + 0.0216 × HC + 0.0448 × AC + 0.2183 × FL + 0.0001 × BPD × AC – 0.0059 × AC × FL) was superior to established birth weight formulae. In the formula derivation group, the lowest mean ± standard deviation (SD) absolute error was 130 ± 91 gm and the lowest mean absolute percentage error was 9.8 ± 7% SD for the new formula and 61.7% of weight estimates fell within ± 10% of the actual weight at birth and this percentage further increased to 83.6 and 91.4% for error of margin of ±15 and ±20% respectively. When this formula was applied in the validation group, the absolute error in grams was 102 ± 115 and absolute percentage error was 7.4 ± 7; hence 77.4% fell within 10%, 80.6% fell within 15%, 90.3% fell within 20%. Further, in the validation group, mean ± SD of estimated birth weight was 1337 ± 406 gm, which was closest to actual birth weight (1328 ± 433 gm).


Our new formula is likely to estimate birth weight in small fetuses (≤2 kg) with reasonable accuracy and reliability. When compared to available methods of ultrasound birth weight estimation, absolute error and absolute percentage error is least with our formula indicating a good fit.

How to cite this article

Reddy S, Hebbar S, Rai L. Feasibility of Sonography in estimating Fetal Weight of Low Birth Weight Babies. Int J Infertil Fetal Med 2016;7(2):42-48.

PDF Share
  1. Influence of fetal growth patterns on sonographic estimation of fetal weight. J Clin Ultrasound 1987 Jul-Aug;15(6):376-383.
  2. The accuracy of ultrasound-estimated fetal weight in extremely preterm infants: a comparison of small for gestational age and appropriate for gestational age. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2014 Apr;54(2):126-131.
  3. Intrauterine growth restriction and fetal body composition. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005 Sep;26(3):258-262.
  4. Estimation of birth weight by use of ultrasonographic formulas targeted to large-, appropriate-, and small-for-gestational-age fetuses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989 Apr;160(4):854-860.
  5. Specific formulas improve the estimation of fetal weight by ultrasound scan. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2014 May;27(7):737-742.
  6. Choice of formula and accuracy of fetal weight estimation in small-forgestational- age fetuses. J Ultrasound Med 2016 Jan;35(1):71-82.
  7. Karnataka State District Wise Census [last cited 2015 Mar 21]; 2011. Available from:
  8. How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis. Multivariate Behav Res 1991 Jul 1;26(3):499-510.
  9. Available from:
  10. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-310.
  11. 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):333-337.
  12. Ultrasonic fetal weight prediction: role of head circumference and femur length. Obstet Gynecol 1985 Jun;65(6):812-817.
  13. New formula for estimating fetal weight below 1000 gm: comparison with existing formulas. J Ultrasound Med 1996 Oct;15(10):669-672.
  14. A new formula for calculating weight in the fetus of < or = 1600 gm. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004 Dec;24(7):775-780.
  15. Ultrasonic measurement of the fetal head to abdominal circumference ratio in normal pregnancy. J Med Assoc Thai 1993 Mar;76(3):153-158.
  16. Sonographic estimation of fetal weight: comparison of bias, precision and consistency using 12 different formulae. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007 Aug;30(2):173-179.
  17. Estimating fetal weights less than 2000 gm: an accurate and simple method. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1984 May;142(5):973-977.
  18. A simple estimated fetal weight equation based on real-time ultrasound measurements of fetuses less than thirty-four weeks’ gestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1983 Mar 1;145(5):557-561.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.