ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2026
Temporal trends in estimated fetal weight accuracy following national guideline implementation: a six-year cohort study at a tertiary center in Southern China (2014-2019).
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionIn 2012, China released its first national guidelines for prenatal ultrasound screening, marking a major step toward standardized and assessable prenatal ultrasound practice nationwide. However, real-world evidence on the effectiveness of these guidelines in clinical practice remains limited, particularly from large-scale, long-term datasets. To address this gap, we aimed to examine temporal trends in the accuracy of ultrasound-based estimated fetal weight (EFW) following the guidelines’ implementation in China. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective cohort study analyzed real-world data from 31,681 singleton pregnancies between 2014 and 2019, drawn from the integrated ultrasound and perinatal databases at a tertiary maternity hospital in southern China. Temporal trends in EFW accuracy, fetal biometric parameters (biparietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference, femur length), and diagnostic performance for fetal growth abnormalities were analysed by calendar quarter from January 2014 to December 2019.
resultEFW accuracy improved progressively over time, with the mean percentage error nearing zero and the proportion of estimates within 10% and 15% of birthweight rising from 78.0% to 93.2% in 2014 to 86.2% and 97.3% in 2019 (OR = 1.032 and 1.045; P < 0.001). Accuracy of all biometric parameters increased, particularly for femur length (β = 0.002). Detection of extreme fetal growth abnormalities based on EFW became more consistent, with detection rates and false-positive rates (FPRs) for severe large-for-gestational-age (EFW > 97th percentile) decreasing from 2.06% to 0.67% (FPRs 1.59% to 0.22%), while fetal growth restriction (EFW <3rd percentile) detection slightly increased from 0.37% to 0.50% (FPRs 0.19% to 0.28%), and false-negative rates remained stable. Similar improvements were observed using absolute birthweight thresholds, with reduced overestimation of macrosomia and enhanced detection of low birthweight, indicating a better balance in EFW’s diagnostic performance across the fetal growth spectrum.
conclusionThis large-scale longitudinal study revealed sustained improvements in EFW accuracy, biometric measurement consistency, and fetal growth abnormality detection following China’s 2012 national guidelines. These advances likely reflect standardized protocols, training, quality assurance, and accumulating operator experience. Future multicenter studies are needed to assess their broader clinical impact.
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.