Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,413

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF SONAR “CROWN‐RUMP LENGTH” MEASUREMENTS

Robinson, H. P., Fleming, J. E. E.·1975·BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology

Abstract

Summary: In a study to evaluate the reproducibility and accuracy of the sonar technique of measurement of the in vivo fetal crown‐rump length (Robinson, 1973), a series of in vivo and in vitro experiments was performed in which the random and systematic errors inherent in the technique were assessed. The potential sources of random error were those of operator judgement, movement of the fetus and mother, machine sensitivity settings and measurement from the photograph; while the sources of systematic error were those of oscilloscope scale factor, and velocity calibration inaccuracies, and the effect of beam width. The overall effect of the random errors, that is, the reproducibility of the technique, was assessed in an in vivo blind trial in which three independent measurements were made of the fetus. In a series of 30 experiments the average standard deviation of the three readings was found to be 1.2 mm. Evaluation of the systematic errors by in vivo experimentation, on the other hand, showed that the basic sonar measurements were in error by an overestimate of 1 mm for the beam width effect and 3.7 per cent for the scale factor and velocity calibration errors. A weighted non‐linear regression analysis of 334 measurements was performed in order to obtain a “curve of best fit” for the period covering 6 to 14 weeks of menstrual age. The values obtained were corrected for the systematic errors and compared with widely quoted anatomical figures. In the second part of this investigation the original data was further analyzed to determine on a statistical basis the accuracy of the technique as a method of estimating maturity. It was shown that such an estimate could be made to within 4.7 days with a 95 per cent probability on the basis of a single measurement, and to within 2.7 days if three independent measurements were made.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1975.tb00710.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 1,413

Metadata

Authors
Robinson, H. P., & Fleming, J. E. E.
Venue
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1975-09
Volume
82
Issue
9
Pages
702-710
ISSN
  • 0306-5456 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-0328
  • 1471-0528
OpenAlex
W2080542014
Cited by
1,413
References
1
FWCI
8.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF SONAR “CROWN‐RUMP LENGTH” MEASUREMENTS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1975.tb00710.x
The paper
Robinson, H. P., & Fleming, J. E. E. (1975). A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF SONAR “CROWN‐RUMP LENGTH” MEASUREMENTS. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1975.tb00710.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.