ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2022
Fetal weight estimation in tall women: is ultrasound more accurate than clinical assessment? A prospective trial.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03206281 (Tall Stature Women Fetal Weight Estimation,Clinical Versus Sonographic Estimation), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 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.
Tall Stature Women Fetal Weight Estimation,Clinical Versus Sonographic Estimation
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influence of maternal body mass index on the accuracy of clinical and sonographic fetal weight estimation.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Article
- Does a larger estimated fetus compared with prior birthweight increase the risk of cesarean delivery after a prior vaginal birth?Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Article
- The role of sonographic estimated fetal weight compared to clinical assessment: superior accuracy only in extreme fetal weight cases.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Factors Affecting Clinical over and Underestimation of Fetal Weight-A Retrospective Cohort.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEstimated fetal weight (EFW) is crucial for clinical decision-making during pregnancy and labor. Maternal habitus impacts its accuracy. This study compared the accuracy of clinical versus ultrasound EFW in tall pregnant women (height ≥ 172 cm, 90th percentile).
methodsIn this prospective study, tall pregnant women at term, who arrived for a prenatal visit and delivered within a week, underwent clinical and ultrasound assessments of estimated fetal weight. Each woman served as her own control. After delivery, birth weight was compared to the clinical and ultrasound EFW. The primary outcome was the accuracy of each method in predicting the actual birth weight.
resultsAll 100 women included in this trial underwent clinical and ultrasound estimations of fetal weight. Mean maternal height was 175.7 ± 3.3 (172-185) cm. More clinical EFW swere inaccurate compared to ultrasound (25 (25%) vs. 6 (6%), respectively, p < 0.001). Both clinical (3583 g) and ultrasound (3490 g) evaluations underestimated the fetal weights compared to the birth weights (3664 g, p < 0.001). In the macrosomic fetal group, both the clinical (3983 g) and ultrasound (3767 g) estimates were significantly inaccurate compared to the birth weights (4237 g, p < 0.001).
conclusionAmong tall women, ultrasound EFW is more accurate than clinical EFW. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND DATE OF REGISTRATION: IRB-0016-17-MMC, Clinical-Trials.gov identifier NCT03206281.
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.