ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Factors Affecting Clinical over and Underestimation of Fetal Weight-A Retrospective Cohort.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- The role of sonographic estimated fetal weight compared to clinical assessment: superior accuracy only in extreme fetal weight cases.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- A predicting model for intrapartum cesarean delivery at admission using a nomogram: a retrospective cohort study in China.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Mean Fetal Kidney Length at the Third Trimester: An Emerging Ultrasound Parameter for Gestational Age Assessment.Cureus · 2025Article
- Inappropriate Birth Weight for Gestational Age Among Newborns Born at Dessie Referral Hospital: A Retrospective Cohort Study.International journal of pediatrics · 2024Article
- The Impact of Total Deceleration Area and Fetal Growth on Neonatal Acidemia in Vacuum Extraction Deliveries.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical estimation of fetal weight is an integral component of obstetric care that might dictate the timing and mode of delivery. Inaccurate fetal weight estimation might result in unnecessary interventions or in underestimating potential risks, resulting in inappropriate intrapartum care. This retrospective study assessed factors associated with under- or overestimation of birthweight and evaluated the obstetric implications. It included singleton births ≥24 w with clinically estimated fetal weight (EFW) up to 1 week before delivery, during 2014−2020. Estimates >±10% of the actual birthweight were considered inaccurate and categorized as overestimation (>10% heavier than the actual birthweight) or underestimation (>10% smaller than the birthweight). Multivariable logistic regression was performed to reveal factors associated with inaccurate EFW. Maternal characteristics and obstetric outcomes were compared. The primary outcomes for the overestimation group were the neonatal composite adverse outcome, induction of labor and cesarean delivery rates. The primary outcomes for the underestimation group were rates of shoulder dystocia, 3rd- or 4th-degree perineal lacerations, and failed vacuum extraction. Among 38,615 EFW, 5172 (13.4%) were underestimated, 6695 (17.3%) were overestimated and 27,648 (69.3%) accurate. Multivariable logistic regression found increasing gestational age as an independent risk-factor for underestimation (odds ratio (OR) 1.15 for every additional week, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12−1.2). Major factors independently associated with overestimation were nulliparity (OR 1.95, CI 1.76−2.16), maternal obesity (OR 1.52, CI 1.33−1.74), smoking (OR 1.6, CI 1.33−1.93), and oligohydramnios (OR 1.92, CI 1.47−2.5). Underestimation was an independent risk-factor for shoulder dystocia (OR 1.61, CI 1.05−2.46) and 3rd- or 4th-degree perineal lacerations (OR 1.59, CI 1.05−2.43). Overestimation was an independent risk-factor for neonatal composite adverse outcome (OR 1.15, CI 1.02−1.3), induced labor (OR 1.30, CI 1.21−1.40) and cesarean delivery (OR 1.59, CI 1.41−1.79). Clinicians should be aware of factors and adverse obstetric implications associated with over- or underestimation of birthweight.
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.