Du Bois (1916)
Original formula
1.85m²
Scenario
Mosteller vs Du Bois BSA Formula
Compare the Mosteller and Du Bois body surface area formulas. Understand when to use each and how they differ.
Interactive Calculator
Your Details
cm
kg
Your BSA Results
Mosteller (1987)
Most common
1.84m²
Haycock (1978)
Pediatric use
1.85m²
m²
Average of all three formulas
BSA on Reference Scale
1.85 m²
- 1
- 1.5
- 1.8
- 2.2
- 2.5
Formula Comparison
BSA Reference Range: Average BSA is approximately 1.7 m² for men and 1.6 m² for women. Your average BSA of 1.85 m² is above average, which is common for taller or larger-framed individuals.
The formula
The formula
What BSA Measures
Body Surface Area (BSA) is a measurement of the total external surface area of the human body, expressed in square meters (m²). Unlike BMI, which assesses weight relative to height, BSA estimates the physical extent of the body surface — a metric that correlates closely with metabolic rate, blood volume, and cardiac output.
BSA is most commonly used in clinical medicine to calculate chemotherapy dosages, determine medication doses for drugs with narrow therapeutic windows, and normalize physiological indices such as cardiac index and glomerular filtration rate. Because BSA-based dosing scales drug delivery to a patient's size more precisely than weight alone, it is the standard of care in oncology and several other specialties.
The BSA Formulas
Three validated formulas are provided in this calculator. Each was derived from measurements of different populations, and while they produce similar results for most adults, minor differences are expected. The most widely used formula in current clinical practice is the Mosteller formula, valued for its simplicity.
Du Bois (1916)
BSA = 0.007184 × W0.425 × H0.725
Mosteller (1987)
BSA = √(W × H ÷ 3600)
Haycock (1978)
BSA = 0.024265 × W0.5378 × H0.3964
Where W = weight in kilograms, H = height in centimeters
Formula Source
Du Bois & Du Bois (1916) — A formula to estimate the approximate surface area if height and weight be known. Archives of Internal Medicine, 17, 863–871.
Reference URL: https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.1916.00080130008002
Mosteller (1987) — Simplified calculation of body-surface area. New England Journal of Medicine, 317(17), 1098.
Reference URL: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198707233170417
Haycock et al. (1978) — Geometric method for measuring body surface area: A height-weight formula validated in infants, children, and adults. The Journal of Pediatrics, 93(1), 62–66.
Last Verified: 2026-08-09
Worked Example
Consider an adult who weighs 70 kg and stands 175 cm tall. Applying each formula side by side:
Du Bois: 0.007184 × 700.425 × 1750.725 = 0.007184 × 6.08 × 42.29 ≈ 1.85 m²
Mosteller: √(70 × 175 ÷ 3600) = √(12,250 ÷ 3600) = √3.403 ≈ 1.84 m²
Haycock: 0.024265 × 700.5378 × 1750.3964 = 0.024265 × 9.82 × 7.75 ≈ 1.85 m²
All three formulas converge near 1.85 m² for this individual, which is a typical adult BSA value. The small variation between formulas (within 0.01 m² in this case) is clinically acceptable for most applications.
BSA Formula Comparison Table
| Formula | Equation | Typical Use Case |
|---|---|---|
| Du Bois (1916) | 0.007184 × W0.425 × H0.725 | Original reference standard; widely cited in research and historical clinical data. |
| Mosteller (1987) | √(W × H ÷ 3600) | Most commonly used in modern clinical practice due to its simplicity and strong agreement with the Du Bois formula. |
| Haycock (1978) | 0.024265 × W0.5378 × H0.3964 | Often preferred for pediatric and neonatal populations; validated across a wider age range including infants. |
Why BSA Alone Is Not a Full Picture
BSA is a powerful clinical tool, but it is not a standalone health assessment. A single BSA value does not reveal whether a person is underweight, overweight, or has a healthy body composition. Two individuals with identical BSA can have very different ratios of muscle to fat, different metabolic rates, and different overall health profiles.
BSA is most useful when applied as part of a broader clinical context — for example, when calculating a chemotherapy dose, the clinician also considers organ function, performance status, and prior treatment response. For general wellness tracking, BSA is less informative than BMI, waist circumference, or body composition measurements.
Known Limitations
- BSA formulas are population-derived estimates, not direct measurements. Actual surface area varies with body shape, posture, and individual anatomy.
- The Du Bois formula was derived from only nine subjects, which limits its statistical generalizability across diverse populations.
- BSA formulas may be less accurate at extremes of height and weight (very tall, very short, underweight, or severely obese individuals).
- BSA does not account for body composition — two people with the same BSA can have very different fat-to-muscle ratios.
- BSA is not a fitness metric. It was designed for medical dosing and physiological normalization, not for tracking weight or health status over time.
Scenario guide
Scenario guide
The Mosteller formula
Published in 1987, the Mosteller formula is the simplest BSA equation:
BSA = √(Height (cm) × Weight (kg) / 3600)
It is widely used in clinical practice, particularly in oncology and pediatrics, because it is easy to calculate mentally or with a basic calculator. It has been validated against direct BSA measurements with acceptable accuracy.
The Du Bois formula
Published in 1916, the Du Bois formula is one of the oldest BSA equations:
BSA = 0.007184 × Height(cm)^0.725 × Weight(kg)^0.425
It requires exponentiation, making it harder to calculate without a calculator. It was derived from measurements on a small sample (9 adults) and has been widely used in pharmacology and cardiology.
How do they compare?
- For average adults (160-180 cm, 50-90 kg): Results are very similar — typically within 0.02-0.05 m² (1-3% difference)
- For obese individuals: Mosteller tends to give slightly higher BSA values than Du Bois
- For children: Mosteller is generally preferred due to simplicity; validated pediatric formulas (like Haycock) may be more accurate
- Clinical preference: Mosteller is the standard in oncology; Du Bois is still used in some cardiology and pharmacology applications
Other common BSA formulas
- Haycock (1978): BSA = 0.024265 × Height(cm)^0.3964 × Weight(kg)^0.5378 — preferred for children
- Gehan & George (1970): BSA = 0.0235 × Height(cm)^0.42246 × Weight(kg)^0.51456 — commonly used in pediatrics
- Boyd (1935): BSA = 0.0003207 × Height(cm)^0.3 × Weight(g)^(0.7285 − 0.0188 × log10(Weight(g))) — considered most accurate but complex
Which should you use?
For most practical purposes, the Mosteller formula is the best choice: it is simple, widely validated, and the clinical standard in oncology. Use whatever formula your healthcare provider or institution specifies — consistency matters more than which formula is used.
FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
Mosteller (BSA = √(H×W/3600)) is simpler and the clinical standard. Du Bois (BSA = 0.007184 × H^0.725 × W^0.425) is older and requires exponents. For average adults, results differ by only 1-3%.
The Boyd formula is considered most accurate but is complex. Mosteller and Du Bois are both acceptable for clinical use. The choice matters less than consistency — always use the same formula for tracking.
The Mosteller formula is the standard in oncology for chemotherapy dosing because of its simplicity and widespread validation.
Yes. The Haycock and Gehan & George formulas are commonly preferred for pediatric patients as they were validated against children's BSA measurements.
For most drugs, the differences between formulas (1-3%) are clinically insignificant. The most important thing is using the formula specified by your prescribing guidelines or healthcare provider.
Keep going