ArticleAmerican journal of perinatology2024
Comparing Fetal Ultrasound Biometric Measurements to Neonatal Anthropometry at the Extremes of Birth Weight.
Article in American journal of perinatology, 2024. 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.
- Maternal BMI and Diagnostic Accuracy of Using Estimated Fetal Growth to Predict Abnormal Birthweight: Results from NICHD Fetal Growth Studies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Organophosphate Ester Flame Retardants and Plasticizers in Relation to Fetal Growth in the LIFECODES Fetal Growth Study.Environmental health perspectives · 2024Article
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
Abstract
objectiveError in birthweight prediction by sonographic estimated fetal weight (EFW) has clinical implications, such as avoidable cesarean or misclassification of fetal risk in labor. We aimed to evaluate optimal timing of ultrasound and which fetal measurements contribute to error in fetal ultrasound estimations of birth size at the extremes of birthweight. STUDY
designWe compared differences in head circumference (HC), abdominal circumference (AC), femur length, and EFW between ultrasound and corresponding birth measurements within 14 (
resultsAverage differences between EFW and birthweight for SGA neonates were: -40.2 g (confidence interval [CI]: -82.1, 1.6) at 14 days versus 13.6 g (CI: -52.4, 79.7) at 7 days; for AGA, -122.4 g (-139.6, -105.1) at 14 days versus -27.2 g (-50.4, -4.0) at 7 days; and for LGA, -242.8 g (-306.5, -179.1) at 14 days versus -72.1 g (-152.0, 7.9) at 7 days. Differences between fetal and neonatal HC were larger at 14 versus 7 days, and similar to patterns for EFW and birthweight, differences were the largest for LGA at both intervals. In contrast, differences between fetal and neonatal AC were larger at 7 versus 14 days, suggesting larger error in AC estimation closer to birth.
conclusionUsing a standardized ultrasound protocol, SGA neonates had ultrasound measurements closer to actual birth measurements compared with AGA or LGA neonates. LGA neonates had the largest differences between fetal and neonatal size, with measurements 14 days from delivery showing 3- to 4-fold greater differences from birthweight. Differences in EFW and birthweight may not be explained by a single fetal measurement; whether estimation may be improved by incorporation of other knowable factors should be evaluated in future research. KEY POINTS: · Ultrasound measurements may be inadequate to predict neonatal size at birth.. · Birthweight estimation error is higher for neonates >90th percentile.. · There is higher error in AC closer to birth..
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.