ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2015
Unconditional and conditional standards for fetal abdominal circumference and estimated fetal weight in an ethnic Chinese population: a birth cohort study.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biochemical tests of placental function versus ultrasound assessment of fetal size for stillbirth and small-for-gestational-age infants.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- A Predictive Model for Intrapartum Cesarean Delivery in Multiparous Women After Active Labor Onset.The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research · 2026Article
- Establishing Chinese Fetal Growth Standards: Why and How.Maternal-fetal medicine (Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.) · 2022Review
- Current Issues in the Development of Foetal Growth References and Standards.Current epidemiology reports · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiagnosis of intrauterine fetal growth restriction and prediction of small-for-gestation age are often based on fetal abdominal circumference or estimated fetal weight (EFW). The present study aims to create unconditional (cross-sectional) and conditional (longitudinal) standards of fetal abdominal circumference and EFW for use in an ethnic Chinese population.
methodsIn the Growing Up in Singapore Towards healthy Outcome (GUSTO) birth cohort study in Singapore, fetal biometric measurements were obtained at enrolment to antenatal care (11-12 weeks) and up to three more time points during pregnancy. Singleton pregnancies with a healthy profile defined by maternal, pregnancy and fetal characteristics and birth outcomes were selected for this analysis. The Hadlock algorithm was used to calculate EFW. Mixed effects model was used to establish unconditional and conditional standards in z-scores and percentiles for both genders pooled and for each gender separately.
resultsA total of 313 women were included, of whom 294 had 3 and 19 had 2 ultrasound scans other than the gestational age dating scan. Fetal abdominal circumference showed a roughly linear trajectory from 18 to 36 weeks of gestation, while EFW showed an accelerating trajectory. Gender differences were more pronounced in the 10(th) percentile than the 50(th) or 90(th) percentiles. As compared to other published charts, this population showed growth trajectories that started low but caught up at later gestations.
conclusionsUnconditional and conditional standards for monitoring fetal size and fetal growth in terms of abdominal circumference and EFW are available for this ethnic-Chinese population. Electronic spreadsheets are provided for their implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.