ArticlePregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.)2026
Selection of standards for estimated fetal weight percentiles.
Article in Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate which of 10 standards or references should be used for determination of percentiles of estimated fetal weight (EFW). Study design: Cross-sectional study using pooled data from four maternal-fetal medicine (MFM) practices. Inclusion criteria were as follows: ultrasound exam during 2022, singleton fetus, gestational age 24 Results: In 20,643 ultrasound exams, the formulas from the 1991 FW standard of Hadlock et al. had the best fit to our distribution of EFW (mean Conclusions: Of the norms studied, the FW distribution from the Hadlock 1991 formulas had the best fit to our observed EFW distribution and are the most appropriate standard for determination of EFW percentiles in our US-based MFM practices. All the FW standards had better fit to our data than any of the BW references, so EFW percentiles should be based on FW standards, especially the Hadlock standard, not BW references.
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.