Medical Calculator · RxMedCalc

Fetal Weight Calculator:
Compare 6 EFW Formulas

Enter one set of biometry measurements and see the estimated fetal weight from all 6 published formulas — Hadlock 1–4, Shepard, and INTERGROWTH-21st — side by side, with the spread between them shown at a glance.

6 published formulas Interactive comparison chart Growth velocity between scans Free & private
📐
Fetal Biometry
Leave a field blank if that measurement wasn't taken — formulas needing it will be skipped automatically.
⚖️
Comparison Results
Average EFW
Range
Spread
FormulaParametersEFW
📐
Enter biometry to begin
At minimum, enter AC — most formulas need it
📈
Optional: Growth Velocity Between Two Scans

Compare today's Hadlock 4 EFW against a previous scan to see the weekly growth rate. Serial trend matters more than any single estimate for growth restriction or macrosomia workups.

The 6 Formulas, and When to Use Each

FormulaParametersBest used when
Hadlock 1AC + FLHC and BPD are both unreliable (deeply engaged head, dolichocephaly)
Hadlock 2BPD + AC + FLHC measurement is unavailable but head shape is normal
Hadlock 3HC + AC + FLStandard 3-parameter estimate; among the best-performing in accuracy comparisons
Hadlock 4BPD + HC + AC + FLAll 4 measurements are available — the most widely used clinical default
ShepardBPD + ACOnly head and abdomen were measured; largely superseded but still cited
INTERGROWTH-21stAC + HCComparing against the INTERGROWTH-21st international growth standard
💡
Abdominal circumference (AC) carries the strongest correlation with fetal weight of any single parameter — largely because it reflects fetal liver glycogen and subcutaneous fat. A suboptimal AC measurement affects EFW accuracy more than an imperfect BPD, HC, or FL.

Why the 6 Numbers Won't Match

Every EFW formula is a regression equation fitted to a specific study cohort. Hadlock's four formulas (1984–1985) were derived from a US population using different parameter combinations; Shepard's formula (1982) predates them and uses only BPD and AC; the INTERGROWTH-21st formula (2016) was built from an eight-country international cohort using only AC and HC.

Because each was fitted independently, a 5–10% spread between formulas on the identical measurements is completely normal — it reflects differences in the underlying study populations and modelling choices, not measurement error on your part.

Hadlock vs. INTERGROWTH-21st in Practice

Comparative studies generally find strong correlation between Hadlock and INTERGROWTH-21st estimates, with Hadlock showing a small but consistent edge in predicting actual birth weight in several third-trimester cohorts, while INTERGROWTH-21st has performed reasonably in preterm and international comparisons.

Neither formula is "wrong" — the choice often comes down to which growth reference your unit uses for percentile classification, since the formula and the reference standard should ideally be used as a matched pair.

⚠️
An EFW value alone doesn't tell you if growth is normal. Plot it against a gestational-age-specific reference (Hadlock nomogram, INTERGROWTH-21st, WHO, etc.) to get a percentile — RxMedCalc's OB Wheel includes the Hadlock EFW percentile tool for this.

Choosing a Formula by Clinical Situation

👶

Head Deeply Engaged

BPD becomes unreliable late in labour. Switch to Hadlock 1 (AC+FL only) rather than forcing a poor BPD into a 4-parameter formula.

📏

Suspected Growth Restriction

A single EFW below a threshold matters less than the trend. Use the growth-velocity section above with 2–3 week interval scans.

🍬

Gestational Diabetes / Macrosomia Screen

AC is the most sensitive single parameter for macrosomia. Hadlock 3 or 4 (which weight AC heavily) are preferred over Shepard.

🌍

International / Research Comparison

Use the INTERGROWTH-21st formula if you need results comparable to international standard cohorts rather than a US-derived reference.

Frequently Asked Questions

📋
Key takeaway: All 6 formulas carry roughly ±15% inherent error, and a 5–10% spread between them on the same measurements is expected. Pick the formula that fits the measurements actually available, favour AC-weighted formulas for macrosomia screening, and always plot EFW against a growth reference for percentile classification rather than reading the gram value alone.

Related Pregnancy Tools

Medical Disclaimer: This tool compares published EFW regression formulas using biometry you enter; it does not measure the fetus or replace an ultrasound examination. Formulas: Hadlock 1–4 (Hadlock FP et al., Radiology 1984–1985), Shepard (Shepard MJ et al., Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982), INTERGROWTH-21st (Stirnemann J et al., Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017/2020). All EFW formulas carry an inherent error margin of approximately ±15%. This is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not replace advice from a qualified healthcare provider.