Fetal weight estimation at term – ultrasound versus clinical examination with Leopold’s manoeuvres: a prospective blinded observational study
Background Fetal weight estimation is of key importance in the decision-making process for obstetric planning and management. The literature is inconsistent on the accuracy of measurements with either ultrasound or clinical examination, known as Leopold’s manoeuvres, shortly before term. Maternal BM...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | BMC pregnancy and childbirth Jg. 19; H. 1; S. 122 - 9 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Veröffentlicht: |
London
BioMed Central
11.04.2019
Springer Nature B.V BMC |
| Schlagworte: | |
| ISSN: | 1471-2393, 1471-2393 |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| Abstract | Background
Fetal weight estimation is of key importance in the decision-making process for obstetric planning and management. The literature is inconsistent on the accuracy of measurements with either ultrasound or clinical examination, known as Leopold’s manoeuvres, shortly before term. Maternal BMI is a confounding factor because it is associated with both the fetal weight and the accuracy of fetal weight estimation. The aim of our study was to compare the accuracy of fetal weight estimation performed with ultrasound and with clinical examination with respect to BMI.
Methods
In this prospective blinded observational study we investigated the accuracy of clinical examination as compared to ultrasound measurement in fetal weight estimation, taking the actual birth weight as the gold standard.
In a cohort of all consecutive patients who presented in our department from January 2016 to May 2017 to register for delivery at ≥37 weeks, examination was done by ultrasound and Leopold’s manoeuvres to estimate fetal weight. All examiners (midwives and physicians) had about the same level of professional experience.
The primary aim was to compare overall absolute error, overall absolute percent error, absolute percent error > 10% and absolute percent error > 20% for weight estimation by ultrasound and by means of Leopold’s manoeuvres versus the actual birth weight as the given gold standard, namely separately for normal weight and for overweight pregnant women.
Results
Five hundred forty-three patients were included in the data analysis. The accuracy of fetal weight estimation was significantly better with ultrasound than with Leopold’s manoeuvres in all absolute error calculations made in overweight pregnant women. For all error calculations performed in normal weight pregnant women, no statistically significant difference was seen in the accuracy of fetal weight estimation between ultrasound and Leopold’s manoeuvres.
Conclusions
Data from our prospective blinded observational study show a significantly better accuracy of ultrasound for fetal weight estimation in overweight pregnant women only as compared to Leopold’s manoeuvres with a significant difference in absolute error. We did not observe significantly better accuracy of ultrasound as compared to Leopold’s manoeuvres in normal weight women. Further research is needed to analyse the situation in normal weight women. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | Background
Fetal weight estimation is of key importance in the decision-making process for obstetric planning and management. The literature is inconsistent on the accuracy of measurements with either ultrasound or clinical examination, known as Leopold’s manoeuvres, shortly before term. Maternal BMI is a confounding factor because it is associated with both the fetal weight and the accuracy of fetal weight estimation. The aim of our study was to compare the accuracy of fetal weight estimation performed with ultrasound and with clinical examination with respect to BMI.
Methods
In this prospective blinded observational study we investigated the accuracy of clinical examination as compared to ultrasound measurement in fetal weight estimation, taking the actual birth weight as the gold standard.
In a cohort of all consecutive patients who presented in our department from January 2016 to May 2017 to register for delivery at ≥37 weeks, examination was done by ultrasound and Leopold’s manoeuvres to estimate fetal weight. All examiners (midwives and physicians) had about the same level of professional experience.
The primary aim was to compare overall absolute error, overall absolute percent error, absolute percent error > 10% and absolute percent error > 20% for weight estimation by ultrasound and by means of Leopold’s manoeuvres versus the actual birth weight as the given gold standard, namely separately for normal weight and for overweight pregnant women.
Results
Five hundred forty-three patients were included in the data analysis. The accuracy of fetal weight estimation was significantly better with ultrasound than with Leopold’s manoeuvres in all absolute error calculations made in overweight pregnant women. For all error calculations performed in normal weight pregnant women, no statistically significant difference was seen in the accuracy of fetal weight estimation between ultrasound and Leopold’s manoeuvres.
Conclusions
Data from our prospective blinded observational study show a significantly better accuracy of ultrasound for fetal weight estimation in overweight pregnant women only as compared to Leopold’s manoeuvres with a significant difference in absolute error. We did not observe significantly better accuracy of ultrasound as compared to Leopold’s manoeuvres in normal weight women. Further research is needed to analyse the situation in normal weight women. Abstract Background Fetal weight estimation is of key importance in the decision-making process for obstetric planning and management. The literature is inconsistent on the accuracy of measurements with either ultrasound or clinical examination, known as Leopold’s manoeuvres, shortly before term. Maternal BMI is a confounding factor because it is associated with both the fetal weight and the accuracy of fetal weight estimation. The aim of our study was to compare the accuracy of fetal weight estimation performed with ultrasound and with clinical examination with respect to BMI. Methods In this prospective blinded observational study we investigated the accuracy of clinical examination as compared to ultrasound measurement in fetal weight estimation, taking the actual birth weight as the gold standard. In a cohort of all consecutive patients who presented in our department from January 2016 to May 2017 to register for delivery at ≥37 weeks, examination was done by ultrasound and Leopold’s manoeuvres to estimate fetal weight. All examiners (midwives and physicians) had about the same level of professional experience. The primary aim was to compare overall absolute error, overall absolute percent error, absolute percent error > 10% and absolute percent error > 20% for weight estimation by ultrasound and by means of Leopold’s manoeuvres versus the actual birth weight as the given gold standard, namely separately for normal weight and for overweight pregnant women. Results Five hundred forty-three patients were included in the data analysis. The accuracy of fetal weight estimation was significantly better with ultrasound than with Leopold’s manoeuvres in all absolute error calculations made in overweight pregnant women. For all error calculations performed in normal weight pregnant women, no statistically significant difference was seen in the accuracy of fetal weight estimation between ultrasound and Leopold’s manoeuvres. Conclusions Data from our prospective blinded observational study show a significantly better accuracy of ultrasound for fetal weight estimation in overweight pregnant women only as compared to Leopold’s manoeuvres with a significant difference in absolute error. We did not observe significantly better accuracy of ultrasound as compared to Leopold’s manoeuvres in normal weight women. Further research is needed to analyse the situation in normal weight women. Fetal weight estimation is of key importance in the decision-making process for obstetric planning and management. The literature is inconsistent on the accuracy of measurements with either ultrasound or clinical examination, known as Leopold's manoeuvres, shortly before term. Maternal BMI is a confounding factor because it is associated with both the fetal weight and the accuracy of fetal weight estimation. The aim of our study was to compare the accuracy of fetal weight estimation performed with ultrasound and with clinical examination with respect to BMI.BACKGROUNDFetal weight estimation is of key importance in the decision-making process for obstetric planning and management. The literature is inconsistent on the accuracy of measurements with either ultrasound or clinical examination, known as Leopold's manoeuvres, shortly before term. Maternal BMI is a confounding factor because it is associated with both the fetal weight and the accuracy of fetal weight estimation. The aim of our study was to compare the accuracy of fetal weight estimation performed with ultrasound and with clinical examination with respect to BMI.In this prospective blinded observational study we investigated the accuracy of clinical examination as compared to ultrasound measurement in fetal weight estimation, taking the actual birth weight as the gold standard. In a cohort of all consecutive patients who presented in our department from January 2016 to May 2017 to register for delivery at ≥37 weeks, examination was done by ultrasound and Leopold's manoeuvres to estimate fetal weight. All examiners (midwives and physicians) had about the same level of professional experience. The primary aim was to compare overall absolute error, overall absolute percent error, absolute percent error > 10% and absolute percent error > 20% for weight estimation by ultrasound and by means of Leopold's manoeuvres versus the actual birth weight as the given gold standard, namely separately for normal weight and for overweight pregnant women.METHODSIn this prospective blinded observational study we investigated the accuracy of clinical examination as compared to ultrasound measurement in fetal weight estimation, taking the actual birth weight as the gold standard. In a cohort of all consecutive patients who presented in our department from January 2016 to May 2017 to register for delivery at ≥37 weeks, examination was done by ultrasound and Leopold's manoeuvres to estimate fetal weight. All examiners (midwives and physicians) had about the same level of professional experience. The primary aim was to compare overall absolute error, overall absolute percent error, absolute percent error > 10% and absolute percent error > 20% for weight estimation by ultrasound and by means of Leopold's manoeuvres versus the actual birth weight as the given gold standard, namely separately for normal weight and for overweight pregnant women.Five hundred forty-three patients were included in the data analysis. The accuracy of fetal weight estimation was significantly better with ultrasound than with Leopold's manoeuvres in all absolute error calculations made in overweight pregnant women. For all error calculations performed in normal weight pregnant women, no statistically significant difference was seen in the accuracy of fetal weight estimation between ultrasound and Leopold's manoeuvres.RESULTSFive hundred forty-three patients were included in the data analysis. The accuracy of fetal weight estimation was significantly better with ultrasound than with Leopold's manoeuvres in all absolute error calculations made in overweight pregnant women. For all error calculations performed in normal weight pregnant women, no statistically significant difference was seen in the accuracy of fetal weight estimation between ultrasound and Leopold's manoeuvres.Data from our prospective blinded observational study show a significantly better accuracy of ultrasound for fetal weight estimation in overweight pregnant women only as compared to Leopold's manoeuvres with a significant difference in absolute error. We did not observe significantly better accuracy of ultrasound as compared to Leopold's manoeuvres in normal weight women. Further research is needed to analyse the situation in normal weight women.CONCLUSIONSData from our prospective blinded observational study show a significantly better accuracy of ultrasound for fetal weight estimation in overweight pregnant women only as compared to Leopold's manoeuvres with a significant difference in absolute error. We did not observe significantly better accuracy of ultrasound as compared to Leopold's manoeuvres in normal weight women. Further research is needed to analyse the situation in normal weight women. Background Fetal weight estimation is of key importance in the decision-making process for obstetric planning and management. The literature is inconsistent on the accuracy of measurements with either ultrasound or clinical examination, known as Leopold’s manoeuvres, shortly before term. Maternal BMI is a confounding factor because it is associated with both the fetal weight and the accuracy of fetal weight estimation. The aim of our study was to compare the accuracy of fetal weight estimation performed with ultrasound and with clinical examination with respect to BMI. Methods In this prospective blinded observational study we investigated the accuracy of clinical examination as compared to ultrasound measurement in fetal weight estimation, taking the actual birth weight as the gold standard. In a cohort of all consecutive patients who presented in our department from January 2016 to May 2017 to register for delivery at ≥37 weeks, examination was done by ultrasound and Leopold’s manoeuvres to estimate fetal weight. All examiners (midwives and physicians) had about the same level of professional experience. The primary aim was to compare overall absolute error, overall absolute percent error, absolute percent error > 10% and absolute percent error > 20% for weight estimation by ultrasound and by means of Leopold’s manoeuvres versus the actual birth weight as the given gold standard, namely separately for normal weight and for overweight pregnant women. Results Five hundred forty-three patients were included in the data analysis. The accuracy of fetal weight estimation was significantly better with ultrasound than with Leopold’s manoeuvres in all absolute error calculations made in overweight pregnant women. For all error calculations performed in normal weight pregnant women, no statistically significant difference was seen in the accuracy of fetal weight estimation between ultrasound and Leopold’s manoeuvres. Conclusions Data from our prospective blinded observational study show a significantly better accuracy of ultrasound for fetal weight estimation in overweight pregnant women only as compared to Leopold’s manoeuvres with a significant difference in absolute error. We did not observe significantly better accuracy of ultrasound as compared to Leopold’s manoeuvres in normal weight women. Further research is needed to analyse the situation in normal weight women. Fetal weight estimation is of key importance in the decision-making process for obstetric planning and management. The literature is inconsistent on the accuracy of measurements with either ultrasound or clinical examination, known as Leopold's manoeuvres, shortly before term. Maternal BMI is a confounding factor because it is associated with both the fetal weight and the accuracy of fetal weight estimation. The aim of our study was to compare the accuracy of fetal weight estimation performed with ultrasound and with clinical examination with respect to BMI. In this prospective blinded observational study we investigated the accuracy of clinical examination as compared to ultrasound measurement in fetal weight estimation, taking the actual birth weight as the gold standard. In a cohort of all consecutive patients who presented in our department from January 2016 to May 2017 to register for delivery at ≥37 weeks, examination was done by ultrasound and Leopold's manoeuvres to estimate fetal weight. All examiners (midwives and physicians) had about the same level of professional experience. The primary aim was to compare overall absolute error, overall absolute percent error, absolute percent error > 10% and absolute percent error > 20% for weight estimation by ultrasound and by means of Leopold's manoeuvres versus the actual birth weight as the given gold standard, namely separately for normal weight and for overweight pregnant women. Five hundred forty-three patients were included in the data analysis. The accuracy of fetal weight estimation was significantly better with ultrasound than with Leopold's manoeuvres in all absolute error calculations made in overweight pregnant women. For all error calculations performed in normal weight pregnant women, no statistically significant difference was seen in the accuracy of fetal weight estimation between ultrasound and Leopold's manoeuvres. Data from our prospective blinded observational study show a significantly better accuracy of ultrasound for fetal weight estimation in overweight pregnant women only as compared to Leopold's manoeuvres with a significant difference in absolute error. We did not observe significantly better accuracy of ultrasound as compared to Leopold's manoeuvres in normal weight women. Further research is needed to analyse the situation in normal weight women. |
| ArticleNumber | 122 |
| Author | Husslein, Heinrich Husslein, Peter Pfeifer, Christian Preyer, Oliver Ridder, Anna Oberaigner, Willi Concin, Nicole Musielak, Maciej |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Oliver surname: Preyer fullname: Preyer, Oliver email: oliver.preyer@tauernklinikum.at organization: Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Teaching Hospital Tauernklinikum Zell am See – sequence: 2 givenname: Heinrich surname: Husslein fullname: Husslein, Heinrich organization: Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Division of General Gynaecology and Gynaecologic Oncology, Medical University of Vienna – sequence: 3 givenname: Nicole surname: Concin fullname: Concin, Nicole organization: Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Medical University of Innsbruck – sequence: 4 givenname: Anna surname: Ridder fullname: Ridder, Anna organization: Paracelsus Medical University – sequence: 5 givenname: Maciej surname: Musielak fullname: Musielak, Maciej organization: Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Teaching Hospital Tauernklinikum Zell am See – sequence: 6 givenname: Christian surname: Pfeifer fullname: Pfeifer, Christian organization: Department of Clinical Epidemiology of the Tyrolean State Hospitals Ltd, Cancer Registry of Tyrol, Tirolkliniken GmbH – sequence: 7 givenname: Willi surname: Oberaigner fullname: Oberaigner, Willi organization: Department of Clinical Epidemiology of the Tyrolean State Hospitals Ltd, Cancer Registry of Tyrol, Tirolkliniken GmbH, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and HTA, UMIT The Health & Life Sciences University – sequence: 8 givenname: Peter surname: Husslein fullname: Husslein, Peter organization: Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Division of Obstetrics and Fetomaternal Medicine, Medical University of Vienna |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30971199$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNp9ks1u1DAUhSNURH_gAdggS2zYBPwTJzYLJFRRqDQSG1hbTnwz41FiD7Yzpbu-AmLF6_VJ8ExKaSvBypFzzud777nHxYHzDoriOcGvCRH1m0ioEFWJiSwp5aTkj4ojUjWkpEyygzvfh8VxjGuMSSM4flIcMiwbQqQ8Kn6cQdIDugC7XCUEMdlRJ-sd0gklCCO6vvqJpiEFHf3kDNpCiFNE3WCd7bIRvuvRutlyYdMKLcBv_GCur35FNGrnYdoGiG-RRpvg4wa6ZLeA2uw3YJBvI4Tt3p5hMU3m8mnxuNdDhGc350nx9ezDl9NP5eLzx_PT94uyqzFLJTQ1blgvOQOJDe3buhWMC6ialhoBTW90RzEDpk3FeU8pMNxKUfPcuqaSspPifOYar9dqE3Lj4VJ5bdX-woel0iHZbgDVN1LwVuuay7rqmRatrgklhFZ5npThzHo3szZTO4LpwOWBDfeg9_84u1JLv1V1xUUjWQa8ugEE_23KMajRxg6GQTvwU1SU4iyrseBZ-vKBdO2nkMe3V0kuMeY71Yu7Fd2W8if5LCCzoMuxxAD9rYRgtdsuNW-XytuldtuldtDmgaezaR9ebsoO_3XS2RnzK24J4W_R_zb9BpjO58s |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1002_ajum_12239 crossref_primary_10_2174_1574893618666230126095738 crossref_primary_10_3390_pediatric17040070 crossref_primary_10_1111_jog_15032 crossref_primary_10_3889_oamjms_2021_6845 crossref_primary_10_1089_whr_2023_0118 crossref_primary_10_1097_CM9_0000000000001413 crossref_primary_10_1097_RUQ_0000000000000670 crossref_primary_10_1002_uog_26091 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jogc_2019_10_028 crossref_primary_10_1002_ijgo_15495 crossref_primary_10_1097_NMC_0000000000000764 crossref_primary_10_1002_jum_15959 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jogc_2019_09_003 crossref_primary_10_3390_jcm11226760 crossref_primary_10_1055_s_0044_1786743 |
| Cites_doi | 10.1159/000116742 10.3109/14767058.2013.837877 10.7863/ultra.32.5.815 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.05.016 10.1002/uog.19110 10.1111/jmwh.12414 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2002.01249.x 10.3109/14767058.2012.674990 10.1007/s00404-015-3910-z 10.1055/s-2000-10003 10.1002/uog.19073 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.12.005 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001767 10.1111/jog.12755 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181998eef 10.3109/14767058.2013.858241 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.11.031 10.1016/0002-9378(90)90857-4 10.1016/j.midw.2009.10.005 10.1034/j.1600-0412.2003.00179.x 10.1016/j.ajog.2009.02.035 10.1111/1471-0528.13517 10.1111/j.1479-828X.1995.tb01978.x 10.3109/00016341003686099 10.1007/BF01670040 10.1002/uog.19066 10.1067/mob.2003.302 10.1002/uog.15780 10.1002/uog.17347 10.1055/s-0043-102406 10.1002/1097-0096(199010)13:8<519::AID-JCU1870130802>3.0.CO;2-L 10.1016/0002-9378(85)90298-4 10.1016/0029-7844(95)00096-A 10.1002/uog.1751 10.1016/S0301-2115(02)00140-9 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002220 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.12.043 10.26719/2010.16.3.313 10.1002/uog.15959 10.3109/14767058.2013.806474 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| Copyright | The Author(s). 2019 2019. This work is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. |
| Copyright_xml | – notice: The Author(s). 2019 – notice: 2019. This work is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. |
| DBID | C6C AAYXX CITATION CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 3V. 7RV 7X7 7XB 88E 8FI 8FJ 8FK ABUWG AFKRA AZQEC BENPR CCPQU DWQXO FYUFA GHDGH K9- K9. KB0 M0R M0S M1P NAPCQ PHGZM PHGZT PIMPY PJZUB PKEHL PPXIY PQEST PQQKQ PQUKI PRINS 7X8 5PM DOA |
| DOI | 10.1186/s12884-019-2251-5 |
| DatabaseName | Springer Nature OA Free Journals CrossRef Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed ProQuest Central (Corporate) Nursing & Allied Health Database Health & Medical Collection ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016) Medical Database (Alumni Edition) Hospital Premium Collection Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016) ProQuest Central (Alumni) ProQuest Central UK/Ireland ProQuest Central Essentials ProQuest Central - New (Subscription) ProQuest One ProQuest Central Health Research Premium Collection Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni) Consumer Health Database ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition) Consumer Health Database Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition) PML(ProQuest Medical Library) Nursing & Allied Health Premium ProQuest Central Premium ProQuest One Academic (New) Publicly Available Content Database (subscription) ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New) ProQuest One Health & Nursing ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE) ProQuest One Academic (retired) ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition ProQuest Central China MEDLINE - Academic PubMed Central (Full Participant titles) DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals |
| DatabaseTitle | CrossRef MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) Publicly Available Content Database ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New) ProQuest Central Essentials ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition) ProQuest One Community College ProQuest One Health & Nursing ProQuest Family Health (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Central China ProQuest Central ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection Health Research Premium Collection Health and Medicine Complete (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Central Korea Health & Medical Research Collection ProQuest Central (New) ProQuest Medical Library (Alumni) ProQuest Family Health ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source ProQuest Hospital Collection Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni) ProQuest Hospital Collection (Alumni) Nursing & Allied Health Premium ProQuest Health & Medical Complete ProQuest Medical Library ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source (Alumni) ProQuest One Academic ProQuest One Academic (New) ProQuest Central (Alumni) MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE - Academic Publicly Available Content Database MEDLINE |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: DOA name: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals url: https://www.doaj.org/ sourceTypes: Open Website – sequence: 2 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 3 dbid: 7RV name: Nursing & Allied Health Database url: https://search.proquest.com/nahs sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Medicine |
| EISSN | 1471-2393 |
| EndPage | 9 |
| ExternalDocumentID | oai_doaj_org_article_f7985baa65964f3a8ba6121124785230 PMC6458793 30971199 10_1186_s12884_019_2251_5 |
| Genre | Journal Article Observational Study |
| GroupedDBID | --- 0R~ 23N 2WC 53G 5GY 5VS 6J9 6PF 7RV 7X7 88E 8FI 8FJ AAFWJ AAJSJ AASML AAWTL ABDBF ABUWG ACGFO ACGFS ACUHS ADBBV ADRAZ ADUKV AENEX AFKRA AFPKN AHBYD AHMBA AHYZX ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AMKLP AMTXH AOIJS AZQEC BAPOH BAWUL BCNDV BENPR BFQNJ BKNYI BMC BPHCQ BVXVI C6C CCPQU CS3 DIK DU5 E3Z EBD EBLON EBS EJD ESX F5P FYUFA GROUPED_DOAJ GX1 HMCUK HYE IAO ICW IHR INH INR ITC K9- KQ8 M0R M1P M48 M~E N8Y NAPCQ O5R O5S OK1 OVT P2P PGMZT PHGZM PHGZT PIMPY PJZUB PPXIY PQQKQ PROAC PSQYO PUEGO RBZ RNS ROL RPM RSV SMD SOJ TR2 TUS UKHRP W2D WOQ WOW XSB ~8M AAYXX AFFHD CITATION ALIPV CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 3V. 7XB 8FK DWQXO K9. PKEHL PQEST PQUKI PRINS 7X8 5PM |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c603t-e76073f953e90d2fb6b8358e47b2d8e7fdac203e3ad455f22e30b9865097a2923 |
| IEDL.DBID | RSV |
| ISICitedReferencesCount | 18 |
| ISICitedReferencesURI | http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=000464874400001&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| ISSN | 1471-2393 |
| IngestDate | Tue Oct 14 19:04:21 EDT 2025 Tue Nov 04 02:04:20 EST 2025 Wed Oct 01 14:22:15 EDT 2025 Thu Oct 09 21:40:40 EDT 2025 Mon Jul 21 05:36:34 EDT 2025 Sat Nov 29 06:06:00 EST 2025 Tue Nov 18 21:07:01 EST 2025 Sat Sep 06 07:24:27 EDT 2025 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 1 |
| Keywords | Body mass index Estimated fetal weight Normal weight Fetal weight estimation Leopold’s manoeuvres Clinical examination Ultrasound Prospective blinded observational study Overweight |
| Language | English |
| License | Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c603t-e76073f953e90d2fb6b8358e47b2d8e7fdac203e3ad455f22e30b9865097a2923 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 content type line 23 ObjectType-Undefined-3 |
| OpenAccessLink | https://link.springer.com/10.1186/s12884-019-2251-5 |
| PMID | 30971199 |
| PQID | 2209590055 |
| PQPubID | 44759 |
| PageCount | 9 |
| ParticipantIDs | doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_f7985baa65964f3a8ba6121124785230 pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6458793 proquest_miscellaneous_2207936085 proquest_journals_2209590055 pubmed_primary_30971199 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12884_019_2251_5 crossref_citationtrail_10_1186_s12884_019_2251_5 springer_journals_10_1186_s12884_019_2251_5 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2019-04-11 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2019-04-11 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 04 year: 2019 text: 2019-04-11 day: 11 |
| PublicationDecade | 2010 |
| PublicationPlace | London |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: London – name: England |
| PublicationTitle | BMC pregnancy and childbirth |
| PublicationTitleAbbrev | BMC Pregnancy Childbirth |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | BMC Pregnancy Childbirth |
| PublicationYear | 2019 |
| Publisher | BioMed Central Springer Nature B.V BMC |
| Publisher_xml | – name: BioMed Central – name: Springer Nature B.V – name: BMC |
| References | TF Esakoff (2251_CR7) 2009; 200 KL Grantz (2251_CR26) 2018; 219 AR Bjørstad (2251_CR4) 2010; 89 PF Chien (2251_CR34) 2000; 95 G Noumi (2251_CR44) 2005; 192 NS Fox (2251_CR19) 2009; 113 2251_CR20 KR Goetzinger (2251_CR35) 2014; 27 BM Casey (2251_CR9) 2005; 192 P Dar (2251_CR33) 2000; 45 EM Ray (2251_CR1) 2016; 61 Q Reboul (2251_CR25) 2017; 49 N Gupta (2251_CR8) 2003; 82 A Hammami (2251_CR12) 2018; 52 SL Boulet (2251_CR3) 2003; 188 IM Heer (2251_CR24) 2008; 23 NW Hendrix (2251_CR40) 2000; 45 AP Souka (2251_CR47) 2014; 27 KT Shamley (2251_CR32) 1994; 84 G Leopold (2251_CR15) 1894; 45 JR King (2251_CR5) 2012; 25 H Aksoy (2251_CR18) 2015; 41 S Paganelli (2251_CR17) 2016; 293 GI Hirata (2251_CR31) 1990; 162 AP Frick (2251_CR2) 2016; 47 Z Weiner (2251_CR37) 2002; 105 SP Chauhan (2251_CR14) 2000; 95 X Zhang (2251_CR6) 2008; 198 J Stirnemann (2251_CR28) 2017; 49 JD Baum (2251_CR43) 2002; 47 RL Deter (2251_CR11) 1985; 13 NT Field (2251_CR22) 1995; 86 KH Nicolaides (2251_CR27) 2018; 52 GL Malin (2251_CR13) 2016; 123 O Barel (2251_CR45) 2013; 32 T Ashrafganjooei (2251_CR42) 2010; 16 SP Chauhan (2251_CR36) 1995; 35 JS Lanowski (2251_CR16) 2017; 77 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics (2251_CR21) 2016; 128 FP Hadlock (2251_CR10) 1985; 151 S Khani (2251_CR38) 2011; 27 B Thilaganathan (2251_CR48) 2018; 52 T Farrell (2251_CR23) 2002; 109 V Titapant (2251_CR41) 2001; 84 A Mehdizadeh (2251_CR39) 2000; 17 NJ Dudley (2251_CR49) 2005; 25 A Curti (2251_CR46) 2014; 27 T Kiserud (2251_CR29) 2017; 14 T Nguyen (2251_CR30) 2013; 58 |
| References_xml | – volume: 23 start-page: 204 year: 2008 ident: 2251_CR24 publication-title: Fetal Diagn Ther doi: 10.1159/000116742 – volume: 27 start-page: 737 year: 2014 ident: 2251_CR47 publication-title: J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med doi: 10.3109/14767058.2013.837877 – volume: 32 start-page: 815 year: 2013 ident: 2251_CR45 publication-title: J Ultrasound Med doi: 10.7863/ultra.32.5.815 – volume: 219 start-page: 285.e1 year: 2018 ident: 2251_CR26 publication-title: Am J Obstet Gynecol doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.05.016 – volume: 52 start-page: 5 year: 2018 ident: 2251_CR48 publication-title: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol doi: 10.1002/uog.19110 – volume: 61 start-page: 263 year: 2016 ident: 2251_CR1 publication-title: J Midwifery Womens Health doi: 10.1111/jmwh.12414 – volume: 58 start-page: 200 year: 2013 ident: 2251_CR30 publication-title: J Reprod Med – volume: 109 start-page: 651 year: 2002 ident: 2251_CR23 publication-title: Br J Obstet Gynaecol doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2002.01249.x – volume: 25 start-page: 1953 year: 2012 ident: 2251_CR5 publication-title: J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med doi: 10.3109/14767058.2012.674990 – volume: 84 start-page: 1251 year: 2001 ident: 2251_CR41 publication-title: J Med Assoc Thail – volume: 95 start-page: 639 year: 2000 ident: 2251_CR14 publication-title: Obstet Gynecol – volume: 47 start-page: 194 year: 2002 ident: 2251_CR43 publication-title: J Reprod Med – volume: 293 start-page: 775 year: 2016 ident: 2251_CR17 publication-title: Arch Gynecol Obstet doi: 10.1007/s00404-015-3910-z – volume: 17 start-page: 233 year: 2000 ident: 2251_CR39 publication-title: Am J Perinatol doi: 10.1055/s-2000-10003 – volume: 52 start-page: 44 year: 2018 ident: 2251_CR27 publication-title: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol doi: 10.1002/uog.19073 – ident: 2251_CR20 – volume: 198 start-page: 517.e1 year: 2008 ident: 2251_CR6 publication-title: Am J Obstet Gynecol doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.12.005 – volume: 128 start-page: 1191 year: 2016 ident: 2251_CR21 publication-title: Obstet Gynecol doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001767 – volume: 41 start-page: 1556 year: 2015 ident: 2251_CR18 publication-title: J Obstet Gynaecol Res doi: 10.1111/jog.12755 – volume: 113 start-page: 641 year: 2009 ident: 2251_CR19 publication-title: Obstet Gynecol doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181998eef – volume: 27 start-page: 1328 year: 2014 ident: 2251_CR46 publication-title: J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med doi: 10.3109/14767058.2013.858241 – volume: 192 start-page: 1655 year: 2005 ident: 2251_CR9 publication-title: Am J Obstet Gynecol doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.11.031 – volume: 162 start-page: 238 year: 1990 ident: 2251_CR31 publication-title: Am J Obstet Gynecol doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(90)90857-4 – volume: 27 start-page: 99 year: 2011 ident: 2251_CR38 publication-title: Midwifery doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2009.10.005 – volume: 45 start-page: 317 year: 2000 ident: 2251_CR40 publication-title: J Reprod Med – volume: 82 start-page: 736 year: 2003 ident: 2251_CR8 publication-title: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0412.2003.00179.x – volume: 200 start-page: 672.e1 year: 2009 ident: 2251_CR7 publication-title: Am J Obstet Gynecol doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2009.02.035 – volume: 123 start-page: 77 year: 2016 ident: 2251_CR13 publication-title: Br J Obstet Gynaecol doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13517 – volume: 35 start-page: 266 year: 1995 ident: 2251_CR36 publication-title: Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol doi: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.1995.tb01978.x – volume: 89 start-page: 664 year: 2010 ident: 2251_CR4 publication-title: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand doi: 10.3109/00016341003686099 – volume: 45 start-page: 337 year: 1894 ident: 2251_CR15 publication-title: Arch Gynakol doi: 10.1007/BF01670040 – volume: 52 start-page: 35 year: 2018 ident: 2251_CR12 publication-title: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol doi: 10.1002/uog.19066 – volume: 188 start-page: 1372 year: 2003 ident: 2251_CR3 publication-title: Am J Obstet Gynecol doi: 10.1067/mob.2003.302 – volume: 47 start-page: 332 year: 2016 ident: 2251_CR2 publication-title: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol doi: 10.1002/uog.15780 – volume: 49 start-page: 478 year: 2017 ident: 2251_CR28 publication-title: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol doi: 10.1002/uog.17347 – volume: 77 start-page: 276 year: 2017 ident: 2251_CR16 publication-title: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd doi: 10.1055/s-0043-102406 – volume: 13 start-page: 519 year: 1985 ident: 2251_CR11 publication-title: J Clin Ultrasound doi: 10.1002/1097-0096(199010)13:8<519::AID-JCU1870130802>3.0.CO;2-L – volume: 151 start-page: 333 year: 1985 ident: 2251_CR10 publication-title: Am J Obstet Gynecol doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(85)90298-4 – volume: 86 start-page: 102 year: 1995 ident: 2251_CR22 publication-title: Obstet Gynecol doi: 10.1016/0029-7844(95)00096-A – volume: 25 start-page: 80 year: 2005 ident: 2251_CR49 publication-title: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol doi: 10.1002/uog.1751 – volume: 84 start-page: 926 year: 1994 ident: 2251_CR32 publication-title: Obstet Gynecol – volume: 105 start-page: 20 year: 2002 ident: 2251_CR37 publication-title: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol doi: 10.1016/S0301-2115(02)00140-9 – volume: 14 start-page: e1002220 year: 2017 ident: 2251_CR29 publication-title: PLoS Med doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002220 – volume: 45 start-page: 390 year: 2000 ident: 2251_CR33 publication-title: J Reprod Med – volume: 192 start-page: 1407 year: 2005 ident: 2251_CR44 publication-title: Am J Obstet Gynecol doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.12.043 – volume: 95 start-page: 856 year: 2000 ident: 2251_CR34 publication-title: Obstet Gynecol – volume: 16 start-page: 313 year: 2010 ident: 2251_CR42 publication-title: East Mediterr Health J doi: 10.26719/2010.16.3.313 – volume: 49 start-page: 372 year: 2017 ident: 2251_CR25 publication-title: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol doi: 10.1002/uog.15959 – volume: 27 start-page: 89 year: 2014 ident: 2251_CR35 publication-title: J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med doi: 10.3109/14767058.2013.806474 |
| SSID | ssj0017850 |
| Score | 2.3365169 |
| Snippet | Background
Fetal weight estimation is of key importance in the decision-making process for obstetric planning and management. The literature is inconsistent on... Fetal weight estimation is of key importance in the decision-making process for obstetric planning and management. The literature is inconsistent on the... Background Fetal weight estimation is of key importance in the decision-making process for obstetric planning and management. The literature is inconsistent on... Abstract Background Fetal weight estimation is of key importance in the decision-making process for obstetric planning and management. The literature is... |
| SourceID | doaj pubmedcentral proquest pubmed crossref springer |
| SourceType | Open Website Open Access Repository Aggregation Database Index Database Enrichment Source Publisher |
| StartPage | 122 |
| SubjectTerms | Abdomen Accuracy Adult Age Anthropometry - methods Birth Weight Body mass index Clinical examination delivery Diabetes Estimated fetal weight Female Fetal Weight Fetal weight estimation Fetuses Gynecology Humans Induced labor Infant, Newborn Labor Maternal and Child Health Medicine Medicine & Public Health Midwifery NMR Nuclear magnetic resonance Observational studies Overweight Palpation Physical Examination - methods Physical Examination - statistics & numerical data postpartum health Pregnancy Prenatal Diagnosis - methods Prenatal Diagnosis - statistics & numerical data Prospective blinded observational study Prospective Studies Reproductive Medicine Research Article Single-Blind Method Term Birth Ultrasonic imaging Ultrasonography, Prenatal - statistics & numerical data Ultrasound |
| SummonAdditionalLinks | – databaseName: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals dbid: DOA link: http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV1Jb9UwEB6hCiEuiLIGCjISJ1DUJI633gDxxAEqDiD1ZtmJIyo98lDzUnrsX6g49e_1l3TGWeCxXrjGjuN4Fo9nxt8APPWZNxKPEmmj8zItm8qkDmmNhlwV0MD2vFJDsQm1v68PDsz7H0p9UU7YAA88LNxuo4wW3jkpjCwb7rR3BHqF25LS5NEk7ZspMx2mxvgBtk0xzFzL3Q61sKZsC5Mi_-ap2NiFIlj_7yzMXxMlf4qWxk1ocRNujNYjezHMehuuhPYWXHs3xsdvw9kioDHNvkZ_JyMAjeFmInNrRjqYXZx-Y_0Sv9JROSVGORl9x6brkSycOEqNia-Qh5a9DVREob44Pe_YZ9euQn-M5_M95hj-xnRLk_klgS7WbOVnHy8OFpFr78DHxesPr96kY9GFtJIZX6dBSZT6xggeTFYXjZcejTQdSuWLWgfV1ATqyAN3dSlEUxSBI7k1AfEpV6C5eBe22lUb7gND00RTkmqs5SFz6bKgUJ2qPGS8FLVLIJuIYKsRkZwKYyxtPJloaQe6WaSbJbpZkcCz-ZUvAxzH3zq_JMrOHQlJOz5A_rIjf9l_8VcCOxNf2FG8Oxyf3KeEX5bAk7kZBZOiLa4Nqz72Qd0n0aRN4N7ARvNMOCF35cYkoDYYbGOqmy3t4acI_i1LoXHcBJ5PrPh9Wn9ciQf_YyUewvWCJIiALvMd2Fof9eERXK2O14fd0eMof5eeeDS9 priority: 102 providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals – databaseName: Health & Medical Collection dbid: 7X7 link: http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1Lb9QwEB5BQaiX8oZAQUbiBIqapx9cECBWHKDiANLeLDtxSqUlaTeb0mP_QtUTf6-_hBnnUS2PXrgmTjTOjCfjmfH3ATy3kVUctxJhJeMszKpChQZ1jYFc4TDAtmkherIJsbsr53P1eUi4tUNb5egTvaMum4Jy5DtJQhkrgox6fXAYEmsUVVcHCo2rcI1os8nOxXzacBHx_FjJjCXfadEXS-q5UCFacRzma_8iD9n_tzjzz3bJ32qm_lc0u_m_k7gFW0MQyt70VnMbrrj6Dtz4NJTZ78LpzGFMzn74tCkjHI7-gCMzK0aunJ2fnLFugWK2xMrEqLWja9l4ypK5Y0MdNv4RSvSyj464GMrzk58t-27qxnVHuM1_xQzDCYyHPZldEHZjyRo7pYrxZR4A9x58nb3_8u5DOHA3hAWP0lXoBEfnUak8dSoqk8pyi7GedJmwSSmdqErChkxdasosz6skcSlajSQ8P2ESjDrvw0bd1O4hMIxwJPW6ekoQHnMTOYFeWcQuSrO8NAFEoxZ1MQCbE7_GQvsNjuS6V7xGxWtSvM4DeDE9ctCjelw2-C2ZxjSQALn9hWa5p4f1rSuhZG6N4bniWZUaaQ1hs8UkNiXeA9geLUIPXqLVF-YQwLPpNq5vKtqY2jWdH4MulGNkHMCD3g4nSVICAIuVCkCsWeiaqOt36v1vHkOcZ7nE9wbwcrTlC7H--SUeXT6Jx7CZ0OIiJMx4GzZWy849gevF0Wq_XT71S_MXGUlEDw priority: 102 providerName: ProQuest |
| Title | Fetal weight estimation at term – ultrasound versus clinical examination with Leopold’s manoeuvres: a prospective blinded observational study |
| URI | https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12884-019-2251-5 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30971199 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2209590055 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2207936085 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC6458793 https://doaj.org/article/f7985baa65964f3a8ba6121124785230 |
| Volume | 19 |
| WOSCitedRecordID | wos000464874400001&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| hasFullText | 1 |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| journalDatabaseRights | – providerCode: PRVADU databaseName: Open Access: BioMedCentral Open Access Titles customDbUrl: eissn: 1471-2393 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0017850 issn: 1471-2393 databaseCode: RBZ dateStart: 20010101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://www.biomedcentral.com/search/ providerName: BioMedCentral – providerCode: PRVAON databaseName: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals customDbUrl: eissn: 1471-2393 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0017850 issn: 1471-2393 databaseCode: DOA dateStart: 20010101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://www.doaj.org/ providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals – providerCode: PRVHPJ databaseName: ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources customDbUrl: eissn: 1471-2393 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0017850 issn: 1471-2393 databaseCode: M~E dateStart: 20010101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://road.issn.org providerName: ISSN International Centre – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: Consumer Health Database customDbUrl: eissn: 1471-2393 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0017850 issn: 1471-2393 databaseCode: M0R dateStart: 20090101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://search.proquest.com/familyhealth providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: Health & Medical Collection customDbUrl: eissn: 1471-2393 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0017850 issn: 1471-2393 databaseCode: 7X7 dateStart: 20090101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://search.proquest.com/healthcomplete providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: Nursing & Allied Health Database customDbUrl: eissn: 1471-2393 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0017850 issn: 1471-2393 databaseCode: 7RV dateStart: 20090101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://search.proquest.com/nahs providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: ProQuest Central (subscription) customDbUrl: eissn: 1471-2393 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0017850 issn: 1471-2393 databaseCode: BENPR dateStart: 20090101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://www.proquest.com/central providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: Publicly Available Content Database customDbUrl: eissn: 1471-2393 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0017850 issn: 1471-2393 databaseCode: PIMPY dateStart: 20090101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: http://search.proquest.com/publiccontent providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVAVX databaseName: SpringerLINK Contemporary 1997-Present customDbUrl: eissn: 1471-2393 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0017850 issn: 1471-2393 databaseCode: RSV dateStart: 20011201 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://link.springer.com/search?facet-content-type=%22Journal%22 providerName: Springer Nature |
| link | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1Li9RAEC7cHREvvlej69CCJyWYZz-8ubKDgjMMoy7jKXSSji6MiUwmq8f9C-LJv7e_xKrOQ0ZXQS9NSD-odKqrq6uqvwJ4mHqp4niUcAvpR25UZMrV-K9RkcsMKthpmIk22YSYzeRyqebdPe66j3bvXZJWUttlLfmTGiWppIgJ5SIP-m68AyPc7STla1i8PhpcB0LGvfvy3G5bG5DF6T9Pufw9RvIXR6ndfyZX_4vya3ClUzfZs5Y_rsMFU96AS9POoX4Tvk4Mat_sszWQMkLcaK8yMr1hJLTZ2ek31qyQtpryLzEK4mhq1t-nZOaLplga24VMuuyVoawL-dnp95p91GVlmhM80D9lmuHH99c6WboilMacVelgFMbBLNTtLXg7OXzz_IXbZWlwM-6FG9cIjmKiUHFolJcHRcpT1OqkiUQa5NKIIicUyNCEOo_iuAgCEyJ_SELuEzpA_XIPdsuqNHeAoS4jKarVJv_gPteeESh_hW-8MIpz7YDX_7ok6yDMKZPGKrFHGcmTdqoTnOqEpjqJHXg0dPnU4nf8rfEB8cPQkKC37Ytq_T7pVnJSCCXjVGseKx4VoZapJhQ2n8gmE7sD-z03JZ08qHF8srcS4JkDD4ZqXMnkntGlqRrbBoUlRx3Ygdst8w2UhAT15SvlgNhiyy1St2vK4w8WLZxHscRxHXjcM-dPsv44E3f_qfU9uBwQdxMEpr8Pu5t1Y-7Dxexkc1yvx7AjFkdULoUt5RhGB4ez-WJsDSBYTj18Hs1fTufvxnYx_wCuZkG9 |
| linkProvider | Springer Nature |
| linkToHtml | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMw1V3JbtRAEC1FEwRc2CGGAI0EF5AVr70gIcQ2yigzozkEKZyctt0mkQY7jGcSuOUXECd-go_Kl1DlLRqW3HLgaretdvlVdXVV9SuAx7ETK45bCTuTbmAHWaJsjf8aHbnEoIMd-4mom02I8Vju7KjJCvxsz8JQWWVrEytDnRYJxcg3PI8iVkQZ9fLgs01doyi72rbQqGGxZb4e4ZatfDF4i__3ief1322_2bSbrgJ2wh1_bhvBEdaZCn2jnNTLYh6jFyJNIGIvlUZkKbEW-sbXaRCGmecZH79HEtOc0J4iogM0-asBgb0Hq5PBaPKhy1sIGba5U1fyjRKtv6QqD2Wj3rh2uLT6VU0C_ubZ_lmg-VuWtlr8-lf_N7FdgyuNm81e1XpxHVZMfgMujppCgpvwrW9w18GOqsAwI6aR-ggn03NGixU7Of7OFlMUS0l9pxgVryxK1p4jZeaLphqi6hEKZbOhoW4T6cnxj5J90nlhFoczUz5nmqHA2uOsLJ4SO2XKirgLhuPLKorfW_D-XARyG3p5kZs1YOjDSarmrZqecJdrxwhcd4RrHD8IU22B06ImShrqduogMo2qLZzkUQ20CIEWEdCi0IKn3SMHNW_JWYNfExS7gUQ5Xl0oZh-jxoJFmVAyjLXmoeJB5msZa2Kfc2nalFqwYL1FYNTYwTI6hZ8Fj7rbaMEoLaVzUyyqMbhIcPT9LbhT476biU8UZ65SFogljVia6vKdfH-vYknnQSjxvRY8a3XndFr_lMTdsz_iIVza3B4No-FgvHUPLnuk2MT76a5Dbz5bmPtwITmc75ezB41hYLB73kr1C5tdoU0 |
| linkToPdf | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1Zb9QwEB5BQRUv3EeggJF4AkXN5SO8ca1AlFUlDvXNshMHKi1JtdkUHvsXEE_8vf4SZpwDLRQkxOvGtmYnnyfjmfE3APdtZHOBR4mwUnEWZlWRhwbfNTpyhUMH26aF7JtNyPlc7e3lu0Of03asdh9Tkv2dBmJpqlfbB2XVb3Eltlu0qoqqJ_IQ8RiH_DScyaiOno7rb95PaQSp-JjKPHHa2sfIc_af5Gj-Xi_5S9LUf4tmF_77X1yE84Mbyh73uLkEp1x9GTZfD4n2K_B15tArZ5994JQRE0d_xZGZFSNjzo6PvrFugXK21JeJUXFH17LxniVzXwzV2PgpFOplO466MZTHR99b9snUjesO8aD_iBmGihivezK7IPbGkjV2ChbjYp4C9yq8mz1_-_RFOHRvCAsRpavQSYHmo8p56vKoTCorLHp7ymXSJqVysiqJHTJ1qSkzzqskcSniRhGjnzQJ-p3XYKNuancDGPo4iqpdfVMQEQsTOYl2WcYuSjNemgCi8TXqYqA2pw4bC-2POEroXtUaVa1J1ZoH8GCactDzevxt8BPCxjSQKLn9D83ygx52uK5krrg1RvBcZFVqlDXEzhaT2BR6D2BrRJYe7ESL61MclojQArg3PcYdTmkbU7um82PQiApEdwDXeyBOkqREARbneQByDaJroq4_qfc_ehZxkXGF6wbwcATqT7H-qImb_zT6LmzuPpvpnZfzV7fgXEJAJ5bMeAs2VsvO3YazxeFqv13e8bv2B8UDRYU |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Fetal+weight+estimation+at+term+-+ultrasound+versus+clinical+examination+with+Leopold%27s+manoeuvres%3A+a+prospective+blinded+observational+study&rft.jtitle=BMC+pregnancy+and+childbirth&rft.au=Preyer%2C+Oliver&rft.au=Husslein%2C+Heinrich&rft.au=Concin%2C+Nicole&rft.au=Ridder%2C+Anna&rft.date=2019-04-11&rft.issn=1471-2393&rft.eissn=1471-2393&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=122&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186%2Fs12884-019-2251-5&rft.externalDBID=NO_FULL_TEXT |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1471-2393&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1471-2393&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1471-2393&client=summon |