Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29456580›Full record

ArticleUltrasound (Leeds, England)2018

The accuracy of ultrasound estimation of fetal weight in comparison to birth weight: A systematic review.

Julia Milner, Jane Arezina

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ultrasound (Leeds, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

72 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 168 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Characteristics associated with antenatally unidentified small-for-gestational-age fetuses: prospective cohort study nested within DESiGN randomized controlled trial.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2023
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Objectively Measured Maternal Supine Sleep and Fetal Growth: A Prospective Cohort Study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Machine learning-based prediction of large-for-gestational-age neonates in diabetic and non-diabetic pregnancies.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Oxidative stress and fetal weight: observational findings from a pregnancy cohort in New York City.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026
    Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Julia Milner1Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust, Rotherham, UK.
Jane Arezina2University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
The Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ultrasound estimation of fetal weight is a highly influential factor in antenatal management, guiding both the timing and mode of delivery of a pregnancy. Although substantial research has investigated the most accurate ultrasound formula for calculating estimated fetal weight, current evidence indicates significant error levels. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the most accurate method, whilst identifying sources of inaccuracy in order to facilitate recommendations for future practice. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria and 11 different formulae were assessed; ultrasound calculation of fetal weight was most commonly overestimated. The Hadlock A formula produced the most accurate results, with the lowest levels of random error. Methods incorporating just two measurement parameters were inconsistent, producing large random errors across multiple studies. Key sources of inaccuracy included difficulties obtaining accurate fetal measurements in late gestation; the remainder were operator dependent, including lack of experience and insufficient training and audit. The accuracy of ultrasound estimated fetal weight has improved in the last decade, though a lack of consistency remains evident. National implementation of a rigorous audit programme would likely improve accuracy further, and increase the confidence and clinical value of the method.

Indexed as

accuracybirth weightestimated fetal weightUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID29456580
PMCPMC5810856
OpenAlexW2789413961

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.