Re: percentiles and predicted birthweight

[Kari]

No advice really but Im in the same boat. I have a teeny belly for being
nearly 7 mos pregnant, I look maybe 5 mos at best but the baby measured 3
weeks larger than average on ultrasound and fundal measurement has been
about 2 weeks larger as well. My midwife says it's because Im tall (Im not
really, 66in)

For what it's worth, I was small with my daughter, measured small, didn't
even look pregnant and she was 7lb 9oz at birth. With my son I was HUGE, I
mean I couldn't see my feet by 5 mos, couldn't move. I swore I was having an
elephant! Also measured big on all accounts though not as big as this one
has been, only a few days off on ultrasound. He was 8lb 6oz. So that is why
Im puzzled, I can't believe I'd have a big baby when I look so small! I dont
know how reliable it is honestly...

Kari
mom to Kaylie (7) Noah (4) and #3 due Sept/Oct


"Nancy" > wrote in message
om...
> My last two ultrasounds (at 20 and 26 weeks) indicated that the baby
> was at the 74th percentile for growth. Does anyone know a reliable
> source of info on the implications for predicted birthweight, provided
> the baby stays around that percentile?
>
> (This morning, at 29 weeks, I have a fundal measurement of about 32
> weeks. Yikes.)
>
> Thanks!!
>
> Nancy

[H Schinske]

wrote:

>In the first place, ultrasounds are notoriously bad at weight
>estimation. However, a fundal height of more than 2 cm greater
>than weeks gestation could mean a larger than average baby.

Not in the third trimester. It is normal and expected for fundal heights to be
up to 3 cm. off in either directin in the third trimester.

FWIW my fundal heights were always spot-on average, and I had a 9 lb. 5 oz.
baby. Fundal height has a *low* correlation with baby size, much lower than
ultrasounds (which can also be pounds off, of course). What they're looking out
for is a *change* in fundal height from month to month. A single fundal height
measurement that's within norms tells you almost nothing.

--Helen

[Phoebe & Allyson]

Nancy wrote:

> My last two ultrasounds (at 20 and 26 weeks) indicated that the baby
> was at the 74th percentile for growth. Does anyone know a reliable
> source of info on the implications for predicted birthweight, provided
> the baby stays around that percentile?

Why, yes, I do.
http://www.gestation.net/birthweight_centiles/centile_online.htm
(works only with Internet Explorer, as best as I can tell).


Just as an anecdote, mine was a bit below 50th percentile at
22 weeks. I consistently measured 3-5 weeks small. The
midwife said I'd have a small baby. Caterpillar was 95th
percentile for height and 75th percentile for weight at
birth. Based on the calculator above, she was 55th
percentile for weight among babies with the same gender,
gestation, and maternal height and weight, though.

Phoebe :)

[Elly]

"Nancy" > ha scritto nel messaggio
om...
> (This morning, at 29 weeks, I have a fundal measurement of about 32
> weeks. Yikes.)

Hey Nany - I, on the other hand, at 27 weeks + 1 day, had a fundal height of
31 centimetres!
However, my ob/gyn told me not to worry, she says FH measurements ares by no
means 100 percent accurate. She says that in my case it might be influenced
by the way I'm carrying the baby (sort of in the middle, not high or low).
Also, she is not worried because I had an ultrasound at 26 weeks when the
baby's size was exact for the gestational age.

Elly
27 weeks + 4 days
EDD October 6th

[Nancy]

Thanks to everyone for your replies!

As an interesting aside, my endocrinologist (I neglected to mention in
my first post that I'm a Type 1 diabetic, which does predispose me to
bigger babies, although my first was 50th percentile at birth for
height and weight) told me that some studies suggest that women
pregnant with their 2nd or subsequent children have a better-than-50%
chance of predicting birthweight, in some instances with accuracy
comparable to ultrasound!

Nancy


Phoebe & Allyson > wrote in message >...
> Nancy wrote:
>
> > My last two ultrasounds (at 20 and 26 weeks) indicated that the baby
> > was at the 74th percentile for growth. Does anyone know a reliable
> > source of info on the implications for predicted birthweight, provided
> > the baby stays around that percentile?
>
> Why, yes, I do.
> http://www.gestation.net/birthweight_centiles/centile_online.htm
> (works only with Internet Explorer, as best as I can tell).
>
>
> Just as an anecdote, mine was a bit below 50th percentile at
> 22 weeks. I consistently measured 3-5 weeks small. The
> midwife said I'd have a small baby. Caterpillar was 95th
> percentile for height and 75th percentile for weight at
> birth. Based on the calculator above, she was 55th
> percentile for weight among babies with the same gender,
> gestation, and maternal height and weight, though.
>
> Phoebe :)

[She's A Goddess]

"H Schinske" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
> I thought they were *more* reliable than ultrasound? In any case, it isn't
> quite a fair comparison, because the woman has the advantage of knowing
what
> the first baby *did* weigh, so it's a reasonable bet, if both babies are
full
> term and healthy, that the next one will be less than a pound different
> (obviously there are exceptions! I just mean you'd have about a 75% chance
or
> something like that).

Is there data that they'll be less than a pound off? DD was 7lb 9oz. As I
got to the end of my pregnancy with DS I was guessing he'd be born between 9
and 10 pounds, while my midwife guessed 8lb 4oz at 40 weeks and said 4oz
growth per week would be a good bet as well. He was born at 41w4d and was
9lb 11oz, so more than two pounds greater.