ArticlePediatric research2026
Estimated fetal weight or gestational age: which is crucial for fetal cardiac evaluation?
Article in Pediatric research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFetal cardiac output is typically assessed using gestational age (GA) or estimated fetal weight (EFW), but the optimal reference remains unclear due to limited validation.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed prospectively collected data from singleton fetuses at 27 + 2 to 29 + 6 weeks of gestation. Subjects included those with small for gestational age (SGA; EFW <10th percentile), large for gestational age (LGA; EFW > 90th percentile), and appropriate for gestational age (AGA), all without structural abnormalities. Associations between fetal cardiac output and both GA and EFW were evaluated using generalized additive models.
resultsAmong 443 fetuses with EFWs ranging from 873 to 1631 g, GA showed no significant association with any cardiac parameter (p ≥ 0.282). In contrast, EFW demonstrated significant and largely linear associations with all parameters (p < 0.001, F ≥ 16.7), consistent across GA and EFW ranges. Cardiac parameter distributions by EFW were similar across AGA, SGA, and LGA groups.
conclusionEFW showed stronger and more consistent correlations with fetal cardiac parameters than GA, supporting its use as a more reliable reference for fetal cardiac evaluation across different growth statuses. IMPACT: Fetal cardiac output is typically assessed using reference ranges based on either gestational age (GA) or estimated fetal weight (EFW), both derived from appropriate for gestational age (AGA) fetuses. We showed that EFW is superior to GA for fetal cardiac evaluation. Including non-AGA fetuses confirmed they can be assessed similarly to AGA fetuses. The new EFW-based reference ranges offer a uniform standard, enabling more definitive assessments across varied fetal growth.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41298838What 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.