ArticleInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2025
Evaluation of sonographic and clinical measures in early versus late third trimester for birth weight prediction.
Article in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2025. 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.
- Development of Novel Prenatal Prediction Models for Birth-Weight Estimation in Low-Risk Third-Trimester Pregnancies.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Evaluation of sonographic and clinical measures in early versus late third trimester for birth weight prediction.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the optimal timing for fetal weight estimation during the third trimester.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study involved fetal weight estimations from both early (28
resultsThe study included 3549 cases, revealing mean percentage errors (MPE) of -3.69% for early sonographic assessments, -2.5% for late sonographic assessments, and -1.9% for late clinical assessments. A significant difference was found between early and late sonographic estimations (P < 0.001), whereas late sonographic and clinical assessments did not differ significantly (P = 0.771). Weight predictions for fetuses below the 10th and above the 90th centiles were less accurate than for those within the 10th-90th centiles (P < 0.001). In women with obesity, late clinical estimations were less precise (MPE of -5.85) compared with non-obese women (MPE of -1.66, P < 0.001). For women with diabetes, early sonographic estimations were more accurate (MPE of -1.31) compared with non-diabetic patients (MPE of -3.94, P < 0.001) though this difference did not persist later in pregnancy.
conclusionSonographic and clinical weight predictions in the late third trimester were more accurate than earlier third-trimester sonographic assessments, hence continuous follow up and assessments closer to term are important. In women with diabetes, no adjustments in weight prediction methods are necessary. Accurately predicting birth weights for abnormally small or large fetuses remains challenging, indicating the need for improved screening and diagnostic strategies.
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.