Can a smaller than expected crown–rump length reliably predict the occurrence of subsequent miscarriage in a viable first trimester pregnancy?
Abstract
Aim: To elicit the diagnostic value of smaller than expected crown–rump length ( CRL ) to predict the occurrence of subsequent miscarriage in women with a viable first trimester pregnancy. Methods: A cohort study was conducted in the fetal special care unit of a tertiary care maternity hospital. The recruited participants were young pregnant women at 6–13 weeks of gestation. Transvaginal ultrasonography was performed to determine pregnancy viability and measure the embryonic CRL . To compare the differences in CRL between those pregnancies that remained viable and those that subsequently miscarried, the deviation of observed and expected CRL was calculated and expressed in standard deviations ( SD ) as Z score. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of pregnancies with antecedent growth delay that miscarried by the end of the first trimester. Results: Of the pregnancies that subsequently miscarried, 79.3% (42/53) had smaller than expected CRL , and in 56.6% (30/53) the CRL was 2 SD or less from that expected for gestational age ( GA ). The mean Z score for CRL was significantly lower in pregnancies that subsequently miscarried compared to pregnancies that remained viable (−2.9 ± 2.6 vs −0.8 ± 2.1, respectively, P < 0.001). A CRL of 2 SD or less from that expected for GA as a cut‐off point had a sensitivity of 56.6, specificity of 81.9, positive predictive value of 36.6, negative predictive value of 91.1, likelihood ratio positive of 3.1 and likelihood ratio negative of 0.5 in predicting subsequent miscarriage. Conclusion: Viable first trimester pregnancies with small for GA CRL were associated with a higher probability of a subsequent miscarriage.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Most existing studies investigate the individual components of the first-trimester ultrasound for predicting miscarriage.
“Most existing studies investigate the individual components of the first-trimester ultrasound for predicting miscarriage [9, 25, 26].”
Cites
A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF SONAR “CROWN‐RUMP LENGTH” MEASUREMENTS
Robinson, H. P., & Fleming, J. E. E. (1975) · BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1975.tb00710.x · Cited by 1,413 · see citing works
Robinson, H. P. (1973) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.4.5883.28 · Cited by 392 · see citing works
Pathophysiology of histological changes in early pregnancy loss
Jauniaux, E. R. M., & Burton, G. J. (2004) · Placenta · doi:10.1016/j.placenta.2004.05.011 · Cited by 215 · see citing works
Fetal Size and Dating: Charts Recommended for Clinical Obstetric Practice
Loughna, P., Chitty, L. S., Evans, T., & Chudleigh, T. (2009) · Ultrasound · doi:10.1179/174313409x448543 · Cited by 209 · see citing works
The role of ultrasound imaging in diagnosing and investigating early pregnancy failure
Jauniaux, E. R. M., Johns, J., & Burton, G. J. (2005) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.1892 · Cited by 186 · see citing works
First trimester origins of fetal growth impairment
Smith, G. C. S. (2004) · Seminars in Perinatology · doi:10.1053/j.semperi.2003.10.012 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
Falco, P., Milano, V. N., Pilu, G., et al. (1996) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1046/j.1469-0705.1996.07030165.x · Cited by 110 · see citing works
Dating and growth in the first trimester
Bottomley, C., & Bourne, T. (2009) · Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2009.01.011 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
Mukri, F., Bourne, T., Bottomley, C., Schoeb, C., Kirk, E., & Papageorghiou, A. T. (2008) · BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01833.x · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Crown-rump length in chromosomally abnormal fetuses at 10 to 13 weeks' gestation
Kühn, P., Brizot, M. D. L., Pandya, P., et al. (1995) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/0002-9378(95)90080-2 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Reljič, M. (2001) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1046/j.1469-0705.2001.00370.x · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Ultrasound prediction of risk of spontaneous miscarriage in live embryos from assisted conceptions
Choong, S., Rombauts, L. J. F., Ugoni, A. M., & Meagher, S. (2003) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.909 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Fetal growth delay in threatened abortion: an ultrasound study
Mantoni, M. Y., & Pedersen, J. F. (1982) · BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1982.tb03653.x · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Ultrasonography in the Diagnosis and Management of Abnormal Early Pregnancy
SAWYER, E., & Jurkovic, D. (2007) · Clinical Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/grf.0b013e31802f71db · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Bottomley, C., Daemen, A., Mukri, F., Papageorghiou, A. T., Kirk, E., Pexsters, A., Moor, B. D., Timmerman, D., & Bourne, T. (2008) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/den382 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Dickey, R. P., Gasser, R. F., Olar, T. T., et al. (1994) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a138510 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
BESSHO, T., Sakamoto, H., Shiotani, T., et al. (1995) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a135770 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pillai, R. N., Konje, J. C., Richardson, M., Tincello, D. G., & Potdar, N. (2018) · European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology · doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.10.024 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Wang, Y., Zhang, Q., Yin, C., Chen, L., Yang, Z., Jia, S., Sun, X., Bai, Y., Han, F., & Yuan, Z. (2022) · BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · doi:10.1186/s12884-022-04936-0 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
- Authors
- Abuelghar, W. M., Fathi, H. M., Ellaithy, M. I., & Anwar, M. A.
- Affiliations
- Ain Shams University (EG)
- Obstetrics and Gynecology Department International Medical Center Cairo Egypt
- Corresponding author
- Ellaithy, Mohamed I.
- Venue
- Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-07-02
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1449-1455
- ISSN
- 1341-8076 (ISSN-L)
- 1447-0756
- OpenAlex
- W1565497167
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 0.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Reproductive System and Pregnancy
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
- Keywords
- crown-rump length, first-trimester miscarriage, pregnancy viability, fetal growth restriction, small for gestational age, transvaginal ultrasound, diagnostic accuracy
- MeSH terms
- Abortion, Spontaneous, Adult, Female, Humans, Predictive Value of Tests, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, First, Cohort Studies, Crown-Rump Length, Young Adult
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
