Definition and research guide
This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.
Content available: 4 complete abstracts (1,359 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.
Definition
The weight of the fetus in utero. It is usually estimated by various formulas based on measurements made during prenatal ultrasonography.
Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.
Also known as: Fetal Weights; Weight, Fetal; Weights, Fetal; Body Weight, Fetal; Body Weights, Fetal; Fetal Body Weight; Fetal Body Weights.
Where it fits in the MeSH classification
- Broader topics
- Body Weight; Fetal Development; Reproductive Physiological Phenomena
- See also
- Birth Weight
Related concepts
- Fetus
- Prenatal Ultrasonography
Research landscape
PubMed indexes 2,481 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Fetal Weight” (counts retrieved 2026-10-31). 704 of them (28.4%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2010-2019 with 960 records.
Reviews account for 124 records (5.0%) and meta-analyses for 26. Randomized controlled trials number 34 (1.4%) as a share of all records on the topic. Randomized trials make up only a small share of this literature, so much of what is known comes from laboratory, observational or descriptive work.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 6 |
| 2000-2009 | 811 |
| 2010-2019 | 960 |
| 2020 onward | 704 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 124 | 5.0% |
| Meta-analyses | 26 | 1.0% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 34 | 1.4% |
Method: PubMed query "Fetal Weight"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-31.
Reading the evidence in anatomy and physiology
Anatomy describes how body structures are built and physiology describes how they normally work, so most findings here are descriptive or mechanistic rather than evidence about treatment. Much of what is known comes from dissection, imaging, tissue studies and experiments in animals, and measurements in healthy volunteers can differ from those in people with disease or at different ages. Normal ranges vary between individuals and populations. Check whether a result was measured in people or in another species, the age and health of the participants, and the method used.
Evidence from open-access studies
These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.
The World Health Organization Fetal Growth Charts: A Multinational Longitudinal Study of Ultrasound Biometric Measurements and Estimated Fetal Weight [1]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- BackgroundPerinatal mortality and morbidity continue to be major global health challenges strongly associated with prematurity and reduced fetal growth, an issue of further interest given the mounting evidence that fetal growth in general is linked to degrees of risk of common noncommunicable diseases in adulthood.
- Closing excerpt
- ConclusionsThis study provides WHO fetal growth charts for EFW and common ultrasound biometric measurements, and shows variation between different parts of the world.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (584 words)
BackgroundPerinatal mortality and morbidity continue to be major global health challenges strongly associated with prematurity and reduced fetal growth, an issue of further interest given the mounting evidence that fetal growth in general is linked to degrees of risk of common noncommunicable diseases in adulthood. Against this background, WHO made it a high priority to provide the present fetal growth charts for estimated fetal weight (EFW) and common ultrasound biometric measurements intended for worldwide use.Methods and findingsWe conducted a multinational prospective observational longitudinal study of fetal growth in low-risk singleton pregnancies of women of high or middle socioeconomic status and without known environmental constraints on fetal growth. Centers in ten countries (Argentina, Brazil, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Norway, and Thailand) recruited participants who had reliable information on last menstrual period and gestational age confirmed by crown-rump length measured at 8-13 wk of gestation. Participants had anthropometric and nutritional assessments and seven scheduled ultrasound examinations during pregnancy. Fifty-two participants withdrew consent, and 1,387 participated in the study. At study entry, median maternal age was 28 y (interquartile range [IQR] 25-31), median height was 162 cm (IQR 157-168), median weight was 61 kg (IQR 55-68), 58% of the women were nulliparous, and median daily caloric intake was 1,840 cal (IQR 1,487-2,222). The median pregnancy duration was 39 wk (IQR 38-40) although there were significant differences between countries, the largest difference being 12 d (95% CI 8-16). The median birthweight was 3,300 g (IQR 2,980-3,615). There were differences in birthweight between countries, e.g., India had significantly smaller neonates than the other countries, even after adjusting for gestational age. Thirty-one women had a miscarriage, and three fetuses had intrauterine death. The 8,203 sets of ultrasound measurements were scrutinized for outliers and leverage points, and those measurements taken at 14 to 40 wk were selected for analysis. A total of 7,924 sets of ultrasound measurements were analyzed by quantile regression to establish longitudinal reference intervals for fetal head circumference, biparietal diameter, humerus length, abdominal circumference, femur length and its ratio with head circumference and with biparietal diameter, and EFW. There was asymmetric distribution of growth of EFW: a slightly wider distribution among the lower percentiles during early weeks shifted to a notably expanded distribution of the higher percentiles in late pregnancy. Male fetuses were larger than female fetuses as measured by EFW, but the disparity was smaller in the lower quantiles of the distribution (3.5%) and larger in the upper quantiles (4.5%). Maternal age and maternal height were associated with a positive effect on EFW, particularly in the lower tail of the distribution, of the order of 2% to 3% for each additional 10 y of age of the mother and 1% to 2% for each additional 10 cm of height. Maternal weight was associated with a small positive effect on EFW, especially in the higher tail of the distribution, of the order of 1.0% to 1.5% for each additional 10 kg of bodyweight of the mother. Parous women had heavier fetuses than nulliparous women, with the disparity being greater in the lower quantiles of the distribution, of the order of 1% to 1.5%, and diminishing in the upper quantiles. There were also significant differences in growth of EFW between countries. In spite of the multinational nature of the study, sample size is a limiting factor for generalization of the charts.ConclusionsThis study provides WHO fetal growth charts for EFW and common ultrasound biometric measurements, and shows variation between different parts of the world.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 28118360 · DOI · PMC5261648
Early life course risk factors for childhood obesity: the IDEFICS case-control study [2]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- BackgroundThe early life course is assumed to be a critical phase for childhood obesity; however the significance of single factors and their interplay is not well studied in childhood populations.
- Closing excerpt
- The monitoring of gestational weight seems to be of particular importance for early prevention of childhood obesity.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (264 words)
BackgroundThe early life course is assumed to be a critical phase for childhood obesity; however the significance of single factors and their interplay is not well studied in childhood populations.ObjectivesThe investigation of pre-, peri- and postpartum risk factors on the risk of obesity at age 2 to 9.MethodsA case-control study with 1,024 1:1-matched case-control pairs was nested in the baseline survey (09/2007-05/2008) of the IDEFICS study, a population-based intervention study on childhood obesity carried out in 8 European countries in pre- and primary school settings. Conditional logistic regression was used for identification of risk factors.ResultsFor many of the investigated risk factors, we found a raw effect in our study. In multivariate models, we could establish an effect for gestational weight gain (adjusted OR = 1.02; 95%CI 1.00-1.04), smoking during pregnancy (adjusted OR = 1.48; 95%CI 1.08-2.01), Caesarian section (adjusted OR = 1.38; 95%CI 1.10-1.74), and breastfeeding 4 to 11 months (adjusted OR = 0.77; 95%CI 0.62-0.96). Birth weight was related to lean mass rather than to fat mass, the effect of smoking was found only in boys, but not in girls. After additional adjustment for parental BMI and parental educational status, only gestational weight gain remained statistically significant. Both, maternal as well as paternal BMI were the strongest risk factors in our study, and they confounded several of the investigated associations.ConclusionsKey risk factors of childhood obesity in our study are parental BMI and gestational weight gain; consequently prevention approaches should target not only children but also adults. The monitoring of gestational weight seems to be of particular importance for early prevention of childhood obesity.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 24551043 · DOI · PMC3923715
Assisted reproduction causes placental maldevelopment and dysfunction linked to reduced fetal weight in mice [3]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Compelling evidence indicates that stress in utero, as manifested by low birth weight (LBW), increases the risk of metabolic syndrome in adulthood.
- Closing excerpt
- Our results from the mouse model show the first piece of evidence that ART treatment could affect fetal growth by disrupting placental development and function, suggests that perturbation of genomic imprinting resulted from embryo manipulation may contribute to these problems.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (180 words)
Compelling evidence indicates that stress in utero, as manifested by low birth weight (LBW), increases the risk of metabolic syndrome in adulthood. Singletons conceived by assisted reproductive technology (ART) display a significant increase in LBW risk and ART offspring have a different metabolic profile starting at birth. Here, used mouse as a model, we found that ART resulted in reduced fetal weight and placental overgrowth at embryonic day 18.5 (E18.5). The ART placentae exhibited histomorphological alterations with defects in placental layer segregation and glycogen cells migration at E18.5. Further, ART treatments resulted in downregulation of a majority of placental nutrient transporters and reduction in placental efficiency. Moreover, the ART placentae were associated with increased methylation levels at imprinting control regions of H19, KvDMR1 and disrupted expression of a majority of imprinted genes important for placental development and function at E18.5. Our results from the mouse model show the first piece of evidence that ART treatment could affect fetal growth by disrupting placental development and function, suggests that perturbation of genomic imprinting resulted from embryo manipulation may contribute to these problems.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 26085229 · DOI · PMC4471727
Adverse perinatal outcomes in twins: comparison of intertwin fetal size discordance vs singleton and twin fetal growth charts [4]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- ObjectiveTo compare the predictive performance of intertwin estimated fetal weight (EFW) discordance and EFW centile calculated according to either the Fetal Medicine Foundation (FMF) singleton or twin-specific fetal growth charts for adverse perinatal outcome in dichorionic and monochorionic twin pregnancies.
- Closing excerpt
- Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (331 words)
ObjectiveTo compare the predictive performance of intertwin estimated fetal weight (EFW) discordance and EFW centile calculated according to either the Fetal Medicine Foundation (FMF) singleton or twin-specific fetal growth charts for adverse perinatal outcome in dichorionic and monochorionic twin pregnancies.MethodsThis was a retrospective multicenter cohort study of twin pregnancies managed between January 2013 and December 2023 at three tertiary fetal medicine centers in the UK, Italy and Belgium. Twin pregnancies in which an obstetric ultrasound exam was performed to obtain fetal biometry within 2 weeks before live birth or diagnosis of intrauterine fetal demise of one or both twins were included. Cases with anastomotic complications were excluded. The primary outcome was a composite adverse perinatal outcome (CAPO), defined as stillbirth (intrauterine fetal demise ≥ 22 weeks) of at least one cotwin and/or iatrogenic early preterm birth (delivery ResultsThe study analyzed 1294 dichorionic and 487 monochorionic twin pregnancies. For the prediction of CAPO, intertwin EFW discordance in dichorionic twins achieved an AUC of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89-0.98), compared with 0.83 (95% CI, 0.77-0.90) (P = 0.001) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.81-0.93) (P = 0.017) for EFW centile based on singleton and twin-specific growth charts, respectively. Likewise, intertwin EFW discordance achieved an AUC of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92-0.97) for predicting CAPO in monochorionic twins, outperforming EFW centile based on singleton charts (AUC, 0.80 (95% CI, 0.73-0.87); P ConclusionsIntertwin EFW discordance is a more reliable predictor of the composite outcome of stillbirth in at least one cotwin and/or iatrogenic early preterm birth in twin pregnancies than is EFW centile based on either singleton or twin-specific growth charts. This approach addresses the limitations of using different fetal growth reference charts that rely on arbitrary cut-offs. Following external validation, the use of intertwin EFW discordance prediction algorithms may potentially enhance risk stratification to improve clinical outcomes in twin pregnancies. © 2025 The Author(s). Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41346036 · DOI · PMC12757814
Key reviews and meta-analyses
The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.
- Research article Gestational weight gain across continents and ethnicity: systematic review and meta-analysis of maternal and infant outcomes in more than one million women [5]
- Research article A systematic review of the ultrasound estimation of fetal weight [6]
- Research article Clinical Opinion: The diagnosis and management of suspected fetal growth restriction: an evidence-based approach [7]
- Research article An integrated approach to fetal growth restriction [8]
- Research article Ultrasonographic estimation of fetal weight: development of new model and assessment of performance of previous models [9]
- Research article Accuracy of ultrasound biometry in the prediction of macrosomia: a systematic quantitative review [10]
References
- Kiserud T, Piaggio G, Carroli G, Widmer M, Carvalho J, Neerup Jensen L, et al.. The World Health Organization Fetal Growth Charts: A Multinational Longitudinal Study of Ultrasound Biometric Measurements and Estimated Fetal Weight. . 2017. PMID 28118360 · DOI · PMC5261648
- Bammann K, Peplies J, De Henauw S, Hunsberger M, Molnar D, Moreno LA, et al.. Early life course risk factors for childhood obesity: the IDEFICS case-control study. . 2014. PMID 24551043 · DOI · PMC3923715
- Chen S, Sun FZ, Huang X, Wang X, Tang N, Zhu B, et al.. Assisted reproduction causes placental maldevelopment and dysfunction linked to reduced fetal weight in mice. . 2015. PMID 26085229 · DOI · PMC4471727
- Giorgione V, Lopian M, Trapani M, Brutto M, Ferrante MG, Bhide A, et al.. Adverse perinatal outcomes in twins: comparison of intertwin fetal size discordance vs singleton and twin fetal growth charts. . 2026. PMID 41346036 · DOI · PMC12757814
- Goldstein RF, Abell SK, Ranasinha S, Misso ML, Boyle JA, Harrison CL, et al.. Gestational weight gain across continents and ethnicity: systematic review and meta-analysis of maternal and infant outcomes in more than one million women. BMC Med. 2018. PMID 30165842 · DOI · PMC6117916
- Dudley NJ. A systematic review of the ultrasound estimation of fetal weight. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005. PMID 15505877 · DOI
- Lees CC, Romero R, Stampalija T, Dall'Asta A, DeVore GA, Prefumo F, et al.. Clinical Opinion: The diagnosis and management of suspected fetal growth restriction: an evidence-based approach. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022. PMID 35026129 · DOI · PMC9125563
- Figueras F, Gratacos E. An integrated approach to fetal growth restriction. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2017. PMID 27940123 · DOI
- Hammami A, Mazer Zumaeta A, Syngelaki A, Akolekar R, Nicolaides KH. Ultrasonographic estimation of fetal weight: development of new model and assessment of performance of previous models. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018. PMID 29611251 · DOI
- Coomarasamy A, Connock M, Thornton J, Khan KS. Accuracy of ultrasound biometry in the prediction of macrosomia: a systematic quantitative review. BJOG. 2005. PMID 16225563 · DOI
About this article
- Sources
- NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
- Verification
- Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
- Review state
- automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
- Version
- 1, last updated 2026-10-31.
See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.
Evidence strength
EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.