Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 299, Issue 1, pp 97–103 | Cite as

Sonographic prediction of macrosomia in pregnancies complicated by maternal diabetes: finding the best formula

  • Anat ShmueliEmail author
  • Lina Salman
  • Eran Hadar
  • Amir Aviram
  • Ron Bardin
  • Eran Ashwal
  • Rinat Gabbay-Benziv
Maternal-Fetal Medicine



To evaluate the best performing formula for macrosomia prediction in pregnancies complicated by diabetes.


A retrospective analysis was performed of 1060 sonographic fetal biometrical measurements performed within 7 days of delivery in term pregnancies (37–42 gestational weeks) complicated by diabetes. Sonographic prediction of macrosomia (≥ 4000, ≥ 4250, and ≥ 4500 g) was evaluated utilizing ten previously published formulas by: (1) calculating for each macrosomia threshold the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and ± likelihood ratio for macrosomia prediction; (2) comparing the systematic and random error and the proportion of estimates < 10% of birth weights between macrosomic and non-macrosomic neonates. Best performing formula was determined based on Euclidean distance.


97 (9.2%) macrosomic neonates (> 4000 g) were included. Median birth weight was 3380 (1866–3998) g for non-macrosomic and 4198 (4000–5180) g for macrosomic neonates. Higher macrosomia cutoff was associated with higher specificity and lower sensitivity. We found a considerable variation between formulas in different accuracy parameters. Hadlock’s formula (1985), based on abdominal circumference, femur length, head circumference and biparietal diameter, had the shortest Euclidean distance, reflecting the highest accuracy.


Prediction of macrosomia among women with diabetes differs significantly between formulas. In our cohort, the best performing formula for macrosomia prediction was Hadlock’s formula (1985).


Macrosomia Fetal weight estimation Diabetes in pregnancy 


Author contribution

AS: data collection and management, manuscript writing and editing, data analysis. LS: protocol development, manuscript editing. EH: protocol development, data management. A. Aviram: data collection and management, data analysis. RB: project development, data collection, manuscript editing. EA: project development, data collection. RG-B: project development, data collection, data analysis, manuscript editing.



Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest



  1. 1.
    Dudley NJ (2005) A systematic review of the ultrasound estimation of fetal weight. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 25:80–89. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ott WJ, Doyle S, Flamm S (1985) Accurate ultrasonic estimation of fetal weight. Am J Perinatol 2:178–182. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Simon NV, Levisky JS, Shearer DM, O’Lear MS, Flood JT (1987) Influence of fetal growth patterns on sonographic estimation of fetal weight. J Clin Ultrasound 15:376–383CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Miller JM, Korndorffer FA, Gabert HA (1986) Fetal weight estimates in late pregnancy with emphasis on macrosomia. J Clin Ultrasound 14:437–442CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Evers IM, de Valk HW, Visser GHA (2004) Risk of complications of pregnancy in women with type 1 diabetes: nationwide prospective study in the Netherlands. BMJ 328:915. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Murphy HR, Rayman G, Lewis K, Kelly S, Johal B, Duffield K et al (2008) Effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in pregnant women with diabetes: randomised clinical trial. BMJ 337:a1680CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Visser GHA, de Valk HW (2015) Management of diabetes in pregnancy: antenatal follow-up and decisions concerning timing and mode of delivery. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 29:237–243. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Levy A, Sheiner E, Hammel RD, Hershkovitz R, Hallak M, Katz M et al (2006) Shoulder dystocia: a comparison of patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Arch Gynecol Obstet 273:203–206. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kleitman V, Feldman R, Walfisch A, Toledano R, Sheiner E (2016) Recurrent shoulder dystocia: is it predictable? Arch Gynecol Obstet 294:1161–1166. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Okby R, Sheiner E (2012) Risk factors for neonatal brachial plexus paralysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 286:333–336. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tuuli MG, Kapalka K, Macones GA, Cahill AG (2016) Three-versus two-dimensional sonographic biometry for predicting birth weight and macrosomia in diabetic pregnancies. J Ultrasound Med 35:1925–1930. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jolly M, Robinson S (2000) The causes and effects of fetal macrosomia in mothers with type 1 diabetes. J Clin Pathol 53:889CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Langer O (2000) Fetal macrosomia: etiologic factors. Clin Obstet Gynecol 43:283–297CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Phillips AM, Galdamez AB, Ounpraseuth ST, Magann EF (2014) Estimate of fetal weight by ultrasound within two weeks of delivery in the detection of fetal macrosomia. Aust New Zeal J Obstet Gynaecol 54:441–444. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Melamed N, Yogev Y, Meizner I, Mashiach R, Pardo J, Ben-Haroush A (2011) Prediction of fetal macrosomia: effect of sonographic fetal weight-estimation model and threshold used. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 38:74–81. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Husslein H, Worda C, Leipold H, Szalay S (2012) Accuracy of Fetal Weight Estimation in Women with Diet Controlled Gestational Diabetes. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 72:144–148. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ben-Haroush A, Yogev Y, Mashiach R, Hod M, Meisner I (2003) Accuracy of sonographic estimation of fetal weight before induction of labor in diabetic pregnancies and pregnancies with suspected fetal macrosomia. J Perinat Med 31:225–230. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Alsulyman OM, Ouzounian JG, Kjos SL (1997) The accuracy of intrapartum ultrasonographic fetal weight estimation in diabetic pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 177:503–506CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Best G, Pressman EK (2002) Ultrasonographic prediction of birth weight in diabetic pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 99:740–744PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chitty LS, Altman DG, Henderson A, Campbell S (1994) Charts of fetal size: 2. Head measurements. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 101:35–43CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chitty LS, Altman DG, Henderson A, Campbell S (1994) Charts of fetal size: 3. Abdominal measurements. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 101:125–131CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chitty LS, Altman DG, Henderson A, Campbell S (1994) Charts of fetal size: 4. Femur length. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 101:132–135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Sharman RS, Deter RL, Park SK (1985) Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements—a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 151:333–337CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shepard MJ, Richards VA, Berkowitz RL, Warsof SL, Hobbins JC (1982) An evaluation of two equations for predicting fetal weight by ultrasound. Am J Obstet Gynecol 142:47–54CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jordaan HV (1983) Estimation of fetal weight by ultrasound. J Clin Ultrasound 11:59–66CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Carpenter RJ, Deter RL, Park SK (1984) Sonographic estimation of fetal weight. The value of femur length in addition to head and abdomen measurements. Radiology 150:535–540. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hsieh FJ, Chang FM, Huang HC, Lu CC, Ko TM, Chen HY (1987) Computer-assisted analysis for prediction of fetal weight by ultrasound-comparison of biparietal diameter (BPD), abdominal circumference (AC) and femur length (FL). Taiwan Yi Xue Hui Za Zhi 86:957–964PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shinozuka N, Okai T, Kohzuma S, Mukubo M, Shih CT, Maeda T et al (1987) Formulas for fetal weight estimation by ultrasound measurements based on neonatal specific gravities and volumes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 157:1140–1145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Faschingbauer F, Voigt F, Goecke T, Siemer J, Beckmann M, Yazdi B et al (2011) Fetal Weight Estimation in Extreme Macrosomia (≥  4,500 g): comparison of 10 Formulas. Ultraschall Der Medizin-Eur J Ultrasound 33:E62–E67. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hoopmann M, Abele H, Wagner N, Wallwiener D, Kagan KO (2010) Performance of 36 different weight estimation formulae in fetuses with macrosomia. Fetal Diagn Ther 27:204–213. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Valent AM, Newman T, Kritzer S, Magner K, Warshak CR (2017) Accuracy of sonographically estimated fetal weight near delivery in pregnancies complicated with diabetes mellitus. J Ultrasound Med 36:593–599. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Garabedian C, Vambergue A, Salleron J, Deruelle P (2013) Prediction of macrosomia by serial sonographic measurements of fetal soft-tissues and the liver in women with pregestational diabetes. Diabetes Metab 39:511–518. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyHelen Schneider Hospital for Women, Rabin Medical CenterPetah TikvaIsrael
  2. 2.The Sackler Faculty of MedicineTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  3. 3.Lis Maternity Hospital, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical CenterTel AvivIsrael
  4. 4.Hillel Yaffe Medical CenterHaderaIsrael
  5. 5.The Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, TechnionHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations