ArticleObstetrics and gynecology international2026
Agreement Between WHO and Thai Fetal Growth Charts for Classifying Estimated Fetal Weight in Thai Singleton Pregnancies: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Obstetrics and gynecology international, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Universal fetal growth standards may classify fetal size differently from locally derived charts, particularly in populations with different anthropometric characteristics. This study aimed to compare the agreement and classification patterns of the WHO and Thai fetal growth charts when applied to the same ultrasound-derived estimated fetal weight (EFW) values in a Thai clinical cohort. Methods: This retrospective analytical study included 1109 Thai pregnant women between 21 and 42 weeks of gestation who received antenatal care at the Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University. Ultrasound biometric parameters-biparietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference, and femur length-were used to estimate fetal weight via the Hadlock-3 formula. EFW percentiles were calculated using both the WHO fetal growth standards and the Thai fetal growth chart. The proportions of fetuses classified as SGA (< 10th percentile) and LGA (> 90th percentile) were compared. Results: The WHO chart classified a significantly higher proportion of fetuses as SGA (27.1%) compared to the Thai chart (12.7%) ( Conclusion: The WHO and Thai fetal growth charts produced different fetal size classifications in this cohort, with the WHO chart classifying more SGA and fewer LGA fetuses, particularly in late gestation. Further outcome-based validation is needed to determine the clinical performance of each chart.
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.