ArticleAJOG global reports2024
Utilization of third-trimester fetal transcerebellar diameter measurement for gestational age estimation: a comparative study using Bland-Altman analysis.
Article in AJOG global reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deep learning based gestational age estimation from multi-view fetal brain magnetic resonance imaging.Pediatric radiology · 2026Article
- Accuracy of ultrasonographic transcerebellar diameter for dating in third trimester of pregnancy in Nigerian women: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral studies show that gestational age estimation during the third trimester of pregnancy using fetal transcerebellar diameter is superior to that measured using fetal biometry (biparietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference, and femur diaphysis length). However, the conclusion of the studies stemmed from findings of correlation and regression statistical tests, which are not the recommended statistical analysis methods for comparing the values of 1 variable as measured by 2 different methods.
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the accuracy of gestational age estimation using transcerebellar diameter to that using fetal biometry during the third trimester of pregnancy using Bland-Altman statistical analysis. STUDY
designThis was a cross-sectional study on pregnant women who presented for routine antenatal care follow-up in the third trimester of pregnancy (28-41 weeks of gestation) at St. Paul's Hospital Millennium Medical College (Ethiopia) between November 1, 2020, and February 28, 2021. Data were collected prospectively using a structured questionnaire on the Open Data Kit. The primary outcome of our study was the mean bias of gestational age estimation (error in estimating gestational age) using transcerebellar diameter and composite fetal biometry (composite gestational age). Data were analyzed using Stata (version 15; StataCorp, College Station, TX). Simple descriptive analysis, Bland-Altman analysis, and the Kendall τa discordance measurement were performed as appropriate. The mean bias (error) and limits of agreement were used to present the significance of the finding.
resultsA total of 104 pregnant women in the third trimester were included in the study. The mean error (bias) when transcerebellar diameter was used to estimate the gestational age was 0.65 weeks vs a bias of 1.1 weeks using composite biometry, compared with the gold standard method from crown-lump length (in both cases). The calculated estimated limit of agreement was narrower in the case of transcerebellar diameter than in the case of composite fetal biometry (-3.56 to 2.25 vs -4.73 to 2.53). The Kendall τa discordance measurement revealed that gestational age estimations using composite biometry and crown-lump length were 51% to 70%, respectively, more likely to agree than disagree and that gestational age estimations using transcerebellar diameter and crown-lump length were 62% to 77%, respectively, more likely to agree than to disagree (
conclusionGestational age estimation using transcerebellar diameter is more accurate than gestational age estimation using composite gestational age (biparietal diameter, head circumference, femur diaphysis length, and abdominal circumference). Transcerebellar diameter should be used to date third-trimester pregnancies with unknown gestational age (unknown last normal menstrual period with no early ultrasound milestone).
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.