ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2026
A comparative study of estimation of fetal weight in term pregnancy by clinical and sonographic method.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2026. 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.
- Comparison of Johnsons, Inslers formula and ultrasound for estimating fetal weight.Maternal health, neonatology and perinatology · 2026Article
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
Background: Birth weight is the critical determinant of neonatal survival, with deviations from the norm increasing the risks of perinatal morbidity and mortality. Accurate estimation of fetal weight is essential for effective management during labor, particularly in high-risk pregnancies. Clinical and sonographic methods are the primary techniques for estimating fetal weight, with each method showing distinct advantages and limitations. Objective: This study aims to compare the accuracy of clinical (Insler's formula) and sonographic (Hadlock's formula) methods in estimating fetal weight, by correlating these estimates with actual birth weight. Materials and Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted, including 100 antenatal cases with term singleton pregnancies. Clinical assessments were performed using Insler's formula, while ultrasound-based fetal weight estimation was done using Hadlock's formula. Birth weight was recorded post-delivery, and statistical analysis was performed to assess correlations and agreement. Results: The mean fetal weight estimated by Insler's formula was 3.23 ± 0.42 kg, and by Hadlock's formula was 3.16 ± 0.44 kg. The actual birth weight averaged 3.06 ± 0.42 kg. Both methods showed fair agreement with actual birth weight, with Cohen's kappa values of 0.274 (Insler's) and 0.167 (Hadlock's), indicating statistically significant agreement in the Insler's formula group ( Conclusion: Both clinical and sonographic methods demonstrate fair agreement with actual birth weight, but clinical method (Insler's formula) is more accessible, cost-effective, and accurate for fetal weight estimation in low-resource settings. This study suggests that clinical methods can be reliably used in managing labor and delivery in resource-limited environments.
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.