ArticleInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2022
Obstetric consequences of a false-positive diagnosis of large-for-gestational-age fetus.
Article in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The role of sonographic estimated fetal weight compared to clinical assessment: superior accuracy only in extreme fetal weight cases.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Evaluating predelivery platelet and coagulation indices as predictors of immediate postpartum haemorrhage in low-risk women undergoing vaginal delivery.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Obstetric consequences of a false-positive diagnosis of large-for-gestational-age fetus.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 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
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare delivery outcomes between true-positive (TP) and false-positive (FP) large-for-gestational-age (LGA) fetuses, appropriate-for-gestational-age (AGA) fetuses, and false-negative (FN) LGA fetuses.
methodsRetrospective cohort study of singleton pregnancies at risk for macrosomia without contraindication to vaginal delivery, receiving an ultrasound scan at 34-37 weeks of pregnancy.
resultsIn all, 430 pregnancies were included: 155 TP LGA, 87 FP LGA, 177 AGA and 11 FN LGA newborns. Cesarean section rate during labor was significantly higher in FP LGA than in AGA (19% vs. 8.7%) but not significantly different between FP LGA and TP LGA (19% vs. 32.4%). Median birth weight z score was significantly higher in TP LGA (1.9) compared with the FP LGA and AGA (0.91 and 0.84, respectively), whereas no significant differences were found between FP LGA and AGA. Admission to a neonatal intensive care unit was significantly more frequent in TP LGA than AGA, whereas shoulder dystocia, postpartum hemorrhage, and third- to fourth-degree perineal tears were similar between the different groups.
conclusionA false-positive diagnosis of LGA fetus is associated with a significant increase of cesarean section during labor. Therefore, a suspicious ultrasound may result in reduction of the clinical threshold for the diagnosis of abnormal labor.
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.