ArticleUltrasound (Leeds, England)2018
A comparison of ultrasound with magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of fetal biometry and weight in the second trimester of pregnancy: An observer agreement and variability study.
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 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sex differences in global metrics of brain size across the lifespan.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- Late gestation MRI to assess maternal pelvimetry, fetal biometry and placental oxygenation: a retrospective pilot study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Cross-Modality Comparison of Fetal Brain Phenotypes: Insights From Short-Interval Second-Trimester MRI and Ultrasound Imaging.Human brain mapping · 2025Article
- Preserved prenatal lung growth assessed by fetal MRI in the omicron-dominated phase of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.European radiology · 2025Article
- Effect of magnet strength on fetal brain biometry - a single-center retrospective MRI-based cohort study.Neuroradiology · 2023Article
- Fusion imaging in brain structure measurements on a fetus phantom, combining real-time ultrasound with magnetic resonance imaging.Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine · 2021Article
- Deep learning model for predicting gestational age after the first trimester using fetal MRI.European radiology · 2021Article
- MRI-Derived Fetal Weight Estimation in the Midpregnancy Fetus: A Method Comparison Study.Fetal diagnosis and therapy · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the intra and interobserver variability of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of common fetal biometry and estimated fetal weight in the second trimester.
methodsRetrospective measurements on preselected image planes were performed independently by two pairs of observers for contemporaneous ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging studies of the same fetus. Four common fetal measurements (biparietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference and femur length) and an estimated fetal weight were analysed for 44 'low risk' cases. Comparisons included, intra-class correlation coefficients, systematic error in the mean differences and the random error.
resultsThe ultrasound inter- and intraobserver agreements for ultrasound were good, except intraobserver abdominal circumference (intra-class correlation coefficient = 0.880, poor), significant increases in error was seen with larger abdominal circumference sizes. Magnetic resonance imaging produced good/excellent intraobserver agreement with higher intra-class correlation coefficients than ultrasound. Good interobserver agreement was found for both modalities except for the biparietal diameter (magnetic resonance imaging intra-class correlation coefficient = 0.942, moderate). Systematic errors between modalities were seen for the biparietal diameter, femur length and estimated fetal weight (mean percentage error = +2.5%, -5.4% and -8.7%, respectively,
conclusionUltrasound remains the modality of choice when estimating fetal weight, however with increasing application of fetal magnetic resonance imaging a method of assessing fetal weight is desirable. Both methods are subject to random error and operator dependence. Assessment of calliper placement variations may be an objective method detecting larger than expected errors in fetal measurements.
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.