ArticleRevista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia2016
Estimation of Fetal Weight during Labor: Still a Challenge.
Article in Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A new approach to predicting shoulder dystocia: fetal clavicle measurementTurkish journal of medical sciences · 2021Observational
- Current knowledge on the use of ultrasound measurements of fetal soft tissues for the assessment of pregnancy development.Journal of ultrasonography · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the accuracy of fetal weight prediction by ultrasonography labor employing a formula including the linear measurements of femur length (FL) and mid-thigh soft-tissue thickness (STT).
methodsWe conducted a prospective study involving singleton uncomplicated term pregnancies within 48 hours of delivery. Only pregnancies with a cephalic fetus admitted in the labor ward for elective cesarean section, induction of labor or spontaneous labor were included. We excluded all non-Caucasian women, the ones previously diagnosed with gestational diabetes and the ones with evidence of ruptured membranes. Fetal weight estimates were calculated using a previously proposed formula [estimated fetal weight = 1687.47 + (54.1 x FL) + (76.68 x STT). The relationship between actual birth weight and estimated fetal weight was analyzed using Pearson's correlation. The formula's performance was assessed by calculating the signed and absolute errors. Mean weight difference and signed percentage error were calculated for birth weight divided into three subgroups: < 3000 g; 3000-4000 g; and > 4000 g.
resultsWe included for analysis 145 cases and found a significant, yet low, linear relationship between birth weight and estimated fetal weight (p < 0.001; R2 = 0.197) with an absolute mean error of 10.6%. The lowest mean percentage error (0.3%) corresponded to the subgroup with birth weight between 3000 g and 4000 g.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates a poor correlation between actual birth weight and the estimated fetal weight using a formula based on femur length and mid-thigh soft-tissue thickness, both linear parameters. Although avoidance of circumferential ultrasound measurements might prove to be beneficial, it is still yet to be found a fetal estimation formula that can be both accurate and simple to perform.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.