ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2022
Comparison of diagnostic value of two-dimensional ultrasound and clinical examination in fetal weight estimation.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Three Methods of Fetal Weight Estimation Compared in Women With BMI ≥ 35 kg/mBirth (Berkeley, Calif.) · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Estimation of fetal weight during pregnancy plays an important role in prenatal and intrapartum care and is more important in pregnancies after 37 weeks to determine the type of delivery. The aim of this study was to compare and evaluate the accuracy and diagnostic value of two-dimensional ultrasound and clinical examination in estimating fetal weight and pregnancy outcomes. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted on 300 pregnant women without abnormal fetuses and pregnancies after 37 weeks; mothers who had a normal delivery or cesarean section were evaluated by the available method. The weight of the fetus was estimated before and after delivery, using ultrasound and clinical examination. Newborns were classified into five groups based on their fetal weight. Analysis of collected data was performed with SPSS software. Results: The mean age of the patients was 31 years and the mean weight of the neonates was 3450 g. At a weight of less than 3000 g, ultrasound and clinical evaluation were strongly correlated with the actual weight of the infant, but at weights of more than 3500 and 4000 g, weight estimation with ultrasound was highly accurate, and clinical examination had poor accuracy. In lower weights, square errors were fewer in both ultrasound and clinical examination, in comparison with higher weights. In higher weights, ultrasound is more reliable, and the diagnostic accuracy of clinical examination is reduced. Conclusion: Estimation of fetal weight with prenatal ultrasound is highly accurate. Clinical examination is more accurate in determining the weight of small fetuses and does not pay much attention to the diagnosis of macrosomic fetuses and even leads to overestimation, while ultrasound is much more accurate in diagnosing fetal macrosomia.
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.