The Iranian Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility

The Iranian Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility

Diagnostic value of Johnson & Dare's methods in estimating the birth weight using the Rock curve

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Elham Azmoudeh 1
Somayeh Alirezaei 2
Habibollah Esmaily 3
1 M.Sc. in Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Torbat Heydariyeh University of Medical Sciences, Torbat Heydariyeh, Iran.
2 Ph.D. Student of Reproductive Health, Student Research Committee, School of Nursing & Midwifery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
3 Professor, Department of Biostatistics, Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
10.22038/ijogi.2018.11796
Abstract
Introduction:Fetal weight is an important criterion for assessing the neonate's health and taking clinical decisions. Johnson and Dare’s formula are the methods for estimation of fetal birth weight which are less used. This study was performed with aim to determine the diagnostic value of Johnson & Dare's methods in estimating the birth weight using the Rock curve.
Methods:This cross-sectional study was performed on 147 full-term, cephalic, singleton pregnancies in the maternity of Nohon Dey and Taamin Ejtemaei hospitals of Torbat Heydariyeh in 2016. Before birth, Johnson and Dare formula was used to calculate fetal weight. After birth, all infants were weighed and then the true weight of infants was compared with the estimated weights. Data analysis was done with SPSS software (version 20) and by Kruskal–Wallis test, specificity and sensitivity formula, positive & negative predictive value. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: There was no significant difference between Johnson & Dare methods with actual birth (P>0.05). The sensitivity of Johnson formula for estimation of fetal low birth weight and normal fetuses was 60% and for macrosomic fetuses was 71.43%. The sensitivity of Dare formula for estimation of fetal low birth weight and normal fetuses was 40% and for macrosomic fetuses was 85.71%. The area under the curve in the predictive model for two methods and in three weight groups of <2500 g (p=0.26), 2500-4000 g (p=0.26) and >4000 g (p=0.13) had no significant difference.
Conclusion:Johnson and Dare formula in estimation of fetal weight especially in macrosomic fetuses can be good replacement for costly methods such as sonography. Also, Dare method can be used more than before in estimation of fetal weight because it is easy, fast and accurate.
Keywords
Birth weight
Dare formula
Johnson formula
  1. Bakshi L, Begum HA, Khan I, Dey SK, Bhattacharjee M, Bakshi MK, et al. Comparative study of clinical and sonographic estimation of foetal weight at term. Mymensingh Med J 2015; 24(3):572-7.
  2. Blencowe H, Cousens S, Chou D, Oestergaard M, Say L, Moller AB, et al. Born too soon: the global epidemiology of 15 million preterm births. Reprod Health 2013; 10(Suppl 1):S2.
  3. Hoopmann M, Abele H, Wagner N, Wallwiener D, Kagan KO. Performance of 36 different weight estimation formulae in fetuses with macrosomia. Fetal Diagn Ther 2010; 27(4):204-13.
  4. Agboola A. Textbook of obstetrics and gynaecology for medical students. Lagos: University Services Educational Publishers Ltd; 2006. P. 526-31.
  5. Curti A, Zanello M, De Maggio I, Moro E, Simonazzi G, Rizzo N, et al. Multivariable evaluation of term birth weight: a comparison between ultrasound biometry and symphysis-fundal height. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2014; 27(13):1328-32.
  6. Bell R. Trends in birthweight in the north of England. Hum Fertil 2008; 11(1):1-8.
  7. Ugwu EO, Udealor PC, Dim CC, Obi SN, Ozumba BC, Okeke DO, et al. Accuracy of clinical and ultrasound estimation of fetal weight in predicting actual birth weight in Enugu, Southeastern Nigeria. Niger J Clin Pract 2014; 17(3):270-5.
  8. Chauhan SP, Hendrix NW, Magann EF, Morrison JC, Kenney SP, Devoe LD. Limitations of clinical and sonographic estimates of birth weight: experience with 1034 parturients. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 91(1):72-7.
  9. Njoku C, Emechebe C, Odusolu P, Abeshi S, Chukwu C, Ekabua J. Determination of accuracy of fetal weight using ultrasound and clinical fetal weight estimations in Calabar South, South Nigeria. Int Sch Res Notices 2014; 2014:970973.
  10. Banerjee K, Mittal S, Kumar S. Clinical vs. ultrasound evaluation of fetal weight. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2004; 86(1):41-3.
  11. Khani S، Ahmad-Shirvani M، Mohseni-Bandpei MA، Mohammadpour-Tahmtan RA. Comparison of abdominal palpation، Johnson’s technique and ultrasound in the estimation of fetal weight in Northern Iran. Midwifery. 2011;27(1):99-103.
  12. Chithra SC, Kumari LK, Sangeereni M. Comparative study of fetal weight estimation using Hadlock’s and Johnson’s Formula and its correlation with actual birthweight. Int J Sci Stud 2014; 2(7):163-70.
  13. Torloni MR, Sass N, Sato JL, Renzi AC, Fukuyama M, Rubia de Lucca P. Clinical formulas, mother's opinion and ultrasound in predicting birth weight. Sao Paulo Med J 2008; 126(3):145-9.
  14. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988; 44(3):837-45.
  15. Khani S, Ahmad-Shirvani M, Mohseni-Bandpei MA, Mohammadpour-Tahmtan RA. Comparison of abdominal palpation, Johnson's technique and ultrasound in the estimation of fetal weight in Northern Iran. Midwifery 2011; 27(1):99-103.
  16. Goetzinger KR, Odibo AO, Shanks AL, Roehl KA, Cahill AG. Clinical accuracy of estimated fetal weight in term pregnancies in a teaching hospital. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2014; 27(1):89-93.
  17. Roex A, Nikpoor P, van Eerd E, Hodyl N, Dekker G. Serial plotting on customised fundal height charts results in doubling of the antenatal detection of small for gestational age fetuses in nulliparous women. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2012; 52(1):78-82.
  18. Chauhan SP, West DJ, Scardo JA, Boyd JM, Joiner J, Hendrix NW. Antepartum detection of macrosomic fetus: clinical versus sonographic, including soft-tissue measurements. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 95(5):639-42.
  19. Bonzini M, Palmer KT, Coggon D, Carugno M, Cromi A, Ferrario MM. Shift work and pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review with meta-analysis of currently available epidemiological studies. BJOG 2011; 118(12):1429-37.
  20. Renfrew MJ, Craig D, Dyson L, McCormick F, Rice S, King SE, et al. Breastfeeding promotion for infants in neonatal units: a systematic review and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess 2009; 13(40):1-146.
  21. Noumi G, Collado-Khoury F, Bombard A, Julliard K, Weiner Z. Clinical and sonographic estimation of fetal weight performed during labor by residents. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192(5):1407-9.
  22. Lowson K, Offer C, Watson J, McGuire B, Renfrew MJ. The economic benefits of increasing kangaroo skin-to-skin care and breastfeeding in neonatal units: analysis of a pragmatic intervention in clinical practice. Int Breastfeed J 2015; 10:11.
  23. Dare FO, Ademowore AS, Ifaturoti OO, Nganwuchu A. The value of symphysio-fundal height/abdominal girth measurements in predicting fetal weight. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1990; 31(3):243-8.
  24. Hernandez-Castro F, Laredo-Rodriguez A, Hernandez-Herrera R. Sensitivity and predictive value of the Johnson and Toshach method to estimate fetal weight. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc 2006; 44(4):309-12.
  25. Nahum GG, Pham KQ, McHugh JP. Ultrasonic prediction of term birth weight in Hispanic women. Accuracy in an outpatient clinic. J Reprod Med 2003; 48(1):13-22.
The Iranian Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility
Volume 21, Issue 7
September 2018
Pages 43-50