ArticleJournal of clinical ultrasound : JCU2025
Neonatal birthweight prediction using two- and three-dimensional estimated fetal weight among borderline small fetuses.
Article in Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU, 2025. 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.
- Neonatal birthweight prediction using two- and three-dimensional estimated fetal weight among borderline small fetuses.Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU · 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
purposeThis study aimed (1) to determine the degree of correlation between 2D and 3D estimated fetal weight (EFW) and neonatal birth weight (BW) among borderline small fetuses and (2) to compare the accuracy and precision of 2D and 3D EFW in BW prediction.
methodsA retrospective cohort study evaluated fetuses who had an ultrasound performed between January 2017 and September 2021 at a tertiary maternal center. All singleton pregnancies with 3D EFW within 4 weeks of delivery were included. Fetuses with known structural or genetic abnormalities were excluded. Pearson's correlation coefficients were determined for both 2D and 3D EFW to BW then compared using Williams' test and Fisher r to z transformation, where applicable. Mean percent difference and standard deviation were used to assess the accuracy and precision, respectively, of 2D and 3D EFWs in BW prediction.
resultsTwo hundred forty-eight pregnancies were included. Ultrasound studies were performed with a median interval of 2 weeks (IQR 1, 3) between ultrasound and delivery. Both 2D and 3D estimated fetal weights showed a significant correlation with birth weight (r = 0.74 and r = 0.73, respectively), indicating similar accuracy between the two techniques.
conclusionTwo-dimensional and three-dimensional EFWs performed similarly in the prediction of BW in borderline small fetuses.
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.