ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2018
Accuracy of immediate antepartum ultrasound estimated fetal weight and its impact on mode of delivery and outcome - a cohort analysis.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Does fetal size affect maternal perception of fetal movements? Evidence from an individual participant data meta-analysis.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2023Pooled it
- 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 · 2023Trial
- Associated factors of fetal weight estimation accuracy by obstetric ultrasound among pregnant mothers admitted to labor ward of Dessie Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, East Amhara, Ethiopia.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Investigating the Accuracy of Ultrasound Imaging in Measuring Fetal Weight in Comparison with the Actual Postpartum Weight.Pediatric reports · 2025Article
- The Prediction of Intrapartum Fetal Compromise According to the Expected Fetal Weight.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Quantitative Approach to Quality Review of Prenatal Ultrasound Examinations: Estimated Fetal Weight and Fetal Sex.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Quantitative Approach to Quality Review of Prenatal Ultrasound Examinations: Fetal Biometry.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- How to Reach the Best Ultrasound Performance in the Delivery Room.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2022Review
- Percent error of ultrasound examination to estimate fetal weight at term in different categories of birth weight with focus on maternal diabetes and obesity.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Article
- Application of Prospect Theory in Obstetrics by Evaluating Mode of Delivery and Outcomes in Neonates Born Small or Appropriate for Gestational Age.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Comparison of diagnostic value of two-dimensional ultrasound and clinical examination in fetal weight estimation.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2022Article
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the study was to investigate the accuracy of ultrasound-derived estimated fetal weight (EFW) and to determine its impact on management and outcome of delivery.
methodsIn this single-center cohort analysis, women with a singleton term pregnancy in the beginning stages of labor were included. Women with immediately antepartum EFW (N = 492) were compared to women without ultrasound (N = 515).
resultsEFW was correct (deviation from birth weight ≤ 10%) in 72.2% (355/492) of patients with fetal biometry; 19.7% (97/492) were underestimated, and 8.1% (40/492) were overestimated. Newborns with a lower birth weight were more frequently overestimated, and newborns with higher birth weight were more frequently underestimated. The mean difference between EFW and real birth weight was - 114.5 g (standard deviation ±313 g, 95% confidence interval 87.1-142.0). The rate of non-reassuring fetal heart tracing (9.8% vs. 1.9%, P < 0.001) and of caesarean delivery (9.1% vs. 5.0%, P = 0.013) was higher in women with EFW. Overestimation was associated with an increased risk for delivery by caesarean section (odds ratio 2.80; 95% confidence interval 1.2-6.5, P = 0.017). After adjustment, EFW remained associated with increased non-reassuring fetal heart tracing (odds ratio 4.73; 95% confidence interval 2.3-9.6) and caesarean delivery (odds ratio 1.86; 95% confidence interval 1.1-3.1). The incidence of perineal tears of grade 3/4, shoulder dystocia, postnatal depression and neonatal acidosis did not differ between groups.
conclusionsAntepartum ultrasound-derived EFW does not improve maternal and fetal outcome and is therefore not recommended.
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.