Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 272

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

Charts of fetal size: 3. Abdominal measurements

Chitty, Lyn S., Altman, Douglas G., Henderson, Annabel, Campbell, Sruart·1994·BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology

Abstract

Objective To construct new size charts for fetal abdominal circumference and area. Design A prospective, cross sectional study. Setting The routine ultrasound department of a London teaching hospital. Subject The fetuses of 663 women seen in the routine antenatal booking clinic whose ultrasound and menstrual dates agreed within 10 days. Methods Fetuses were scanned once only for the purpose of the study at gestations between 12 and 42 weeks, when up to 20 dimensions were measured. Separate regression models were fitted to estimate the mean and standard deviation as functions of gestational age. Gentiles were derived by combining these two regression models, assuming that the measurements have a Normal distribution at each gestation. Results A total of 610 fetuses had their abdominal circumference measured directly. Abdominal diameters were recorded for 425 fetuses and the circumference was also derived from these, as was the abdominal area. New charts for abdominal circumference (directly measured and derived from diameters) are presented. The directly measured circumferences were consistently (by about 3.5 %) greater than those derived from measurement of the abdominal diameters. The new charts are compared with previously published charts that are in wide use. A chart for abdominal area is also presented. Conclusions We have constructed new size charts for the fetal abdominal circumference, both measured directly and derived from abdominal diameters. We have demonstrated the difference between the size charts constructed from these two sets of values and hence the importance of using the appropriately derived chart when assessing the abdominal circumference. The differences between the new charts and previous ones may be largely due to methodological differences.

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.1471-0528.1994.tb13077.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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 272

Metadata

Authors
Chitty, L. S., Altman, D. G., Henderson, A., & Campbell, S.
Venue
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1994-02
Volume
101
Issue
2
Pages
125-131
ISSN
  • 0306-5456 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-0328
  • 1471-0528
OpenAlex
W2163180049
Cited by
272
References
1
FWCI
6.58
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: Charts of fetal size: 3. Abdominal measurements. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1994.tb13077.x
The paper
Chitty, L. S., Altman, D. G., Henderson, A., & Campbell, S. (1994). Charts of fetal size: 3. Abdominal measurements. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1994.tb13077.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.