Ultrasonic Fetal Cephalometry: Percentiles Curve

Flamme, Pierre

doi:10.1136/bmj.3.5823.384

Cited by 26 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Eighty‐three publications from 32 countries were identified; 14–96 the earliest was published in 1971 and the latest in 2008. In two publications, 49,76 multiple study designs were used, for instance AC using a longitudinal and a cross‐sectional design; the best described methodology with the highest quality score was used in the final analysis.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review of methodology used in ultrasound studies aimed at creating charts of fetal size

Ioannou

Talbot

Ohuma

et al. 2012

BJOG

132

163

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Reliable ultrasound charts are necessary for the prenatal assessment of fetal size, yet there is a wide variation of methodologies for the creation of such charts.Objective To evaluate the methodological quality of studies of fetal biometry using a set of predefined quality criteria of study design, statistical analysis and reporting methods.Search strategy Electronic searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL, and references of retrieved articles.Selection criteria Observational studies whose primary aim was to create ultrasound size charts for bi-parietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference and femur length in fetuses from singleton pregnancies.Data collection and analysis Studies were scored against a predefined set of independently agreed methodological criteria and an overall quality score was given to each study. Multiple regression analysis between quality scores and study characteristics was performed.Main results Eighty-three studies met the inclusion criteria. The highest potential for bias was noted in the following fields: 'Inclusion/exclusion criteria', as none of the studies defined a rigorous set of antenatal or fetal conditions which should be excluded from analysis; 'Ultrasound quality control measures', as no study demonstrated a comprehensive quality assurance strategy; and 'Sample size calculation', which was apparent in six studies only. On multiple regression analysis, there was a positive correlation between quality scores and year of publication: quality has improved with time, yet considerable heterogeneity in study methodology is still observed today.Conclusions There is considerable methodological heterogeneity in studies of fetal biometry. Standardisation of methodologies is necessary in order to make correct interpretations and comparisons between different charts. A checklist of recommended methodologies is proposed.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review of methodology used in ultrasound studies aimed at creating charts of fetal size

Ioannou

Talbot

Ohuma

et al. 2012

BJOG

132

163

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Publications about fetal monitoring by ultrasonography usually offer a mean curve of the biparietal diameter with one or two Standard deviations. We believe [5,6,7] that instead of mean values one should use percentile values because they are less influenced by extremes. The "correction" of values thus obtained may introduce uncontrol label subjective errors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The measurement of fetal growth during pregnancy by ultra-sound (B-Scan)

Issel¹,

Frenzlau²,

Bayer³

et al. 1975

Journal of Perinatal Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We have followed fetal growth by ultrasonographic B-scans. In addition to percentile curves of the biparietal skull diameter we have established percentile curves for measurements of the fetal trunk (sagittal thoracic diameter and length of trunk). The percentile curves for the biparietal diameter were obtained from 5400 individual measurements; the percentile curves for the trunk measurements utilized 1300 individual measurements. These cases were from almost entirely unselected material from our special prenatal clinic. This resulted in a larger variation than the percentile curves for biparietal diameter of other authors [Campbell and Newman]. However, these authors selected their material for "normal pregnancy" while we insured that neither "corrections" of the normal variation nor subjective criteria for exclusion have introduced a systematic error. The advantages of ultrasonography for monitoring of the pregnancy are self-evident: repeated examinations are possible, the examination takes little time, and the method is safe. The determination of the biparietal diameter for estimation of fetal development alone is insufficient because trunk measurements may indicate developmental disturbances (dystrophy and hypertrophy) before the growth of the biparietal diameter of the skull is affected. Furthermore, comparison of the fetal skull and trunk measurement may indicate errors in measurement or malformations (hydrocephalus, microcephalus). The following percentile curves are illustrated graphically: 1. Gestational age versus biparietal diameter (Fig. 1). 2. Biparietal diameter versus weeks of gestation (Fig. 2). 3. Length of gestation versus sagittal thoracic diameter (Fig. 3). 4. Length of gestation versus length of trunk (Fig. 4). 5. Sagittal thoracic diameter versus length of trunk (Fig. 5).

show abstract

“…( 1), fetuses that are small for dates (5), and twins: fetus A cephalic (6), fetus A breech (7), fetus B cephalic (8), and fetus B breech (9).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%