Context:Estimation of birth weight is an important factor in antenatal and labour management. Estimation of birth weight determines the time, mode and place of delivery. Aims: This study aims at comparing the accuracy of Johnson’s method and Dare’s method for estimating foetal birth weight at term. Settings and Design: This was a prospective observational study done at a tertiary care teaching hospital over a period of one year. Methods and Material: 300 women with singleton uncomplicated term pregnancy satisfying inclusion and exclusion criteria were included in the study. Foetal weight estimation was done by Johnson’s method and Dare’s method within 72 hours before delivery and was compared with actual birth weight. Statistical analysis used: Statistical analysis for comparison was done using SPSS software (version 20). Mean absolute error, percentage error, overestimation and underestimation of both methods was compared. Results: The mean actual birth weight (ABW) was 2861.8±460 grams. The mean estimated birth weight (EBW) by Johnson’s method and Dare’s method was 2979.1±382 grams and 2925.01±420 grams respectively. About 23.6% were low birth weight (LBW) and 1% was macrosomic babies. Dare’s method had least maximum and minimum error than Johnson’s method. The mean absolute error by Dare’s method was lower than Johnson’s method. The birth weight of 73% and 73.7% cases could be predicted within 10 % error of ABW by Dare’s method and Johnson’s method respectively. Both methods overestimated birth weight in LBW babies. Conclusions: Dare’s method is more accurate than Johnson’s method in estimating foetal birth weight and predicting LBW and macrosomic babies.

Keywords: Dare’s Method; Estimated Foetal Weight; Johnson’s Method.