Cross-sectional study compares fetal weight estimations by ultrasound and clinical methods, suggesting implications for obstetric care.
Background: Accurate estimation of fetal weight is crucial in obstetric care to anticipate complications associated with both low birth weight and macrosomia. This study aimed to compare clinical and ultrasonographic methods of fetal weight estimation with actual birth weight at term. Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted on 76 term pregnant women (37–42 weeks) at RMCH, Bareilly. Fetal weight was estimated clinically using Johnson's and Dare's formulas, and sonographically using Hadlock's formula. These estimates were compared with actual birth weights post-delivery. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 23.0, with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant. The Results: mean fetal weight estimated clinically was 2912.6 ±396.4 g, by ultrasound was 3198.64 ±492.76 g, and actual birth weight was 2834.64 ±492.74 g. Ultrasound significantly overestimated fetal weight compared to actual birth weight (p < 0.001), whereas the clinical method showed no statistically significant difference (p = 0.284). Neither method accurately identified the incidence of low birth weight (25%). Conclusion: While ultrasonography is a valuable tool, it tends to overestimate fetal weight. Clinical methods, though less precise, show closer agreement with actual birth weight. A combined approach using both methods is recommended to improve accuracy and guide obstetric management effectively.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vais et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: