Cited by 68Prenatal Screening and DiagnosticsFetal and Pediatric Neurological DisordersPregnancy and preeclampsia studies

Revisiting first-trimester fetal biometry

Open access
Salomon, L. J., Bernard, J. P., Duyme, M., Dorion, A., Ville, Y.·2003·Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Although advances in ultrasound have facilitated the diagnosis of fetal abnormalities in the first trimester, fetal biometry at this stage of pregnancy remains underused in prenatal diagnosis. We hypothesized that charts which directly correlate measurements to crown-rump length (CRL) could be more accurate than those based on gestational age (GA) derived from CRL measurement. The aim of this study was to construct CRL-based biometric charts. METHODS: Measurements of biparietal diameter (BPD), head circumference (HC) and abdominal circumference (AC) were prospectively collected from 939 normal singleton fetuses. Charts and predictive equations were constructed from data obtained from pregnancies in which the CRL was between 45 and 84 mm and for which the outcome was normal. RESULTS: Measurements of BPD, HC and AC from 880 fetuses who met the criteria were correlated with CRL and used to construct charts and predictive equations. The standard error of estimates using CRL was significantly lower than that using GA in all cases. DISCUSSION: First-trimester growth charts and predictive equations based on CRL instead of GA are more accurate. They might have a role in quality control of first-trimester ultrasound examination and may help in the diagnosis of fetal conditions that involve early growth abnormalities.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/uog.162

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Femoral length shows high variability in its measurement and therefore cannot be used reliably for gestational age.

    “Both recommendations are justified, as the FL shows high variability in its measurement and therefore cannot be used reliably for gestational age [27].”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 16 · Cited by 68

Authors
Salomon, L. J., Bernard, J. P., Duyme, M., Dorion, A., & Ville, Y.
Affiliations
Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Poissy (FR)
Corresponding author
Ville, Y.
Venue
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-06-09
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
63-66
ISSN
  • 0960-7692 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-0705
OpenAlex
W2040171499
Cited by
68
References
16
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Fetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Pregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Keywords
crown-rump length, gestational age estimation, biparietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference, prediction equations, fetal growth disorders
MeSH terms
Abdomen, Adult, Female, Embryonic and Fetal Development, Fetus, Gestational Age, Head, Humans, Middle Aged, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, First, Reference Values, Ultrasonography, Prenatal, Crown-Rump Length

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review