ArticleJournal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine2026
Evaluating the Need for Multiple Ultrasound Measurements for Accurate Prediction of Birthweight Using Estimated Fetal Weight.
Article in Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate whether averaging replicate fetal biometry measurements during an examination improves estimated fetal weight (EFW) accuracy for predicting birthweight compared with a single set and to assess how variability in fetal biometric measurements changes across gestation.
methodsSecondary analysis of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child and Health and Human Development (NICHD) Fetal Growth Studies-Singletons. At each study visit, fetal head circumference (HC), abdominal circumference (AC), and femur length (FL) were measured in triplicate to compute EFW at each of 6 study visits (0-5). Variability among replicates was assessed across gestation using boxplots and two-way repeated measures ANOVA. For participants with visit 5 EFW (n = 1101), predictive accuracy of each individual measurement and their averages was compared with birthweight using average percent error and proportion within 10% of birthweight. One-way ANOVA and chi-square tests were applied. Sensitivity analyses included second-to-last visit, subgroups classified as small- or large-for-gestational age, and a subgroup of participants who delivered within 3 days of visit 5.
resultsAcross visits, replicate HC, AC, and FL showed minimal variability, with no significant differences among replicates or across gestation. At visit 5, average EFW and standard deviations were similar across individual and averaged measurements. Percent errors ranged from 8.2 to 8.5% (p = .999), and proportion within 10% of birthweight ranged from 64.4 to 66.4% (p = .954). Sensitivity analyses produced similarly null findings.
conclusionsIn a controlled research setting with credentialed sonographers and standardized protocols, averaging replicate fetal biometric measurements did not improve EFW prediction of birthweight. A single high-quality measurement of fetal biometry may be sufficient, although further research is warranted to confirm generalizability to routine clinical practice.
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.