ArticleInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2025
Accuracy of sonographic fetal biometry in estimating intertwin size discordance at birth.
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.
- Risk of Placental Pathology Across Ultrasound-Defined Phenotypes of Impaired Fetal Growth in Dichorionic Twins: A Retrospective Cohort Study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Article
- Accuracy of sonographic fetal biometry in estimating intertwin size discordance at birth.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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the accuracy of estimated fetal weight (EFW) and abdominal circumference (AC) discordance in diagnosing large birthweight (BW) discordance and selective fetal growth restriction (sFGR).
methodsRetrospective cohort study of patients with twin pregnancies followed at a tertiary center (N = 1065). We determined the accuracy of intertwin fetal size discordance (based on either EFW or fetal AC) at the last ultrasound exam before birth in estimating birthweight discordance and in diagnosing sFGR at birth.
resultsEFW discordance was more accurate than AC discordance in estimating BW discordance as reflected by a smaller systematic error (-0.97% vs. -6.43%, respectively, P < 0.001) and mean absolute percentage error (5.70% vs. 7.35%, respectively, P < 0.001), and a larger proportion of cases with discordance within 5%, 10%, or 15% of BW discordance (53.1% vs. 45.4%, 84.3% vs. 72.4%, and 95.1% vs. 87.0%, respectively). Still, both EFW discordance and AC discordance had low diagnostic accuracy for large BW discordance and sFGR. For example, EFW discordance >20% had a sensitivity of 49.1% and a positive predictive value of 57.0% for BW discordance >20%, and the antenatal diagnosis of sFGR had a sensitivity of 45.8%-54.4% and a positive predictive value of 50.9%-55.2% for the postnatal diagnosis of sFGR.
conclusionWhile EFW discordance was more accurate than AC discordance in estimating BW discordance, both measures had low diagnostic accuracy for large BW discordance and sFGR. Care providers should consider the limited diagnostic accuracy when making management decisions on the timing and mode of delivery.
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.