ArticlePloS one2023
Predicting mid-pelvic interspinous distance in women using height and pubic arch angle.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of supine vs. hip- and knee-flexed position on anteroposterior diameter and inclination of the female pelvic outlet: an MRI-based 3D reconstruction study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Caesarean Section for Orthopedic Indications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo predict the interspinous distance (ISD) using the relationship between female height and pelvimetric measures on magnetic resonance (MR) images.
methodsWe obtained measurements of the pubic arch angle (PAA), inlet-anteroposterior (AP) distance, mid-pelvis AP distance, outlet-AP distance, ISD, and ischial tuberosity distance using 710 pelvic MR images from nonpregnant reproductive-aged (21-50 years) women from January 2014 to June 2020. Patient height was also assessed from medical records. We determined the formula for predicting ISD using multiple regression analysis.
resultsThe mean ± standard deviation of the height, PAA, inlet-AP distance, mid-pelvis AP distance, outlet-AP distance, ISD, and ischial tuberosity distance were 160.0 ± 5.5 cm, 87.31 ± 6.6°, 129.7 ± 9.0 mm, 119.7 ± 8.5 mm, 111.71 ± 8.90 mm, 108.88 ± 8.0 mm, and 121.97 ± 11.8 mm, respectively. Two significant regression formulas for predicting ISD were identified as follows: ISD = 0.24973 × height - 0.06724 × inlet-AP distance + 0.12166 × outlet-AP distance + 0.29233 × ischial tuberosity distance + 0.32524 × PAA (P < 0.001, R2 = 0.9973 [adjusted R2 = 0.9973]) and ISD = 0.40935 × height + 0.49761 × PAA (P < 0.001, R2 = 0.9965 [adjusted R2 = 0.9965]).
conclusionISD is the best predictor of obstructed labor. This study predicted ISD with 99% explanatory power using only the height and PAA. The PAA can be measured by transperineal ultrasound. This formula may successfully predict vaginal delivery or cephalopelvic disproportion.
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.