ArticleF&S reports2025
Novel sonographic reference charts for early pregnancy based on known gestational age.
Article in F&S reports, 2025. 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.
- Gestational age determination in pregnancies conceived via assisted reproductive technology.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2026Article
- Reading the hCG tea leaves.F&S reports · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To study pregnancy dating, we developed growth charts using data from pregnancies with known gestational age. The most widely used growth charts for ultrasonographic early pregnancy variables were developed decades ago and are based on dating by the last menstrual period. The aims of the study were to create growth charts for early pregnancy (including crown-rump length, gestational sac diameter, yolk sac diameter, and amniotic cavity diameter) for last menstrual period-dated spontaneous pregnancies and pregnancies conceived through assisted reproductive technology (ART) with known gestational age; and to compare crown-rump length measurements with two established traditional charts based on last menstrual period dating. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Subjects: Of 1,061 singletons, 2,803 crown-rump length measurements from 716 exactly dated ART gestations with 1,143 crown-rump length measurements from 345 spontaneous pregnancies, which were dated by the last menstrual period in women with regular cycles, were compared using nonlinear quantile regression. Exposure: A total of 716 ART pregnancies and 345 spontaneous pregnancies underwent ultrasound examinations, with a median of four visits at various points during the first trimester. Main Outcome Measures: Early pregnancy dating with growth charts based on crown-rump length, gestational sac-, yolk sac- and amniotic cavity diameter. Results: Novel reference charts for ultrasound dating of gestational age based on crown-rump length from 4 + 6 to 10 + 6 gestational weeks were created. The difference of the 10th and 90th percentile was significantly higher in spontaneous compared with ART pregnancies ( Conclusion: Early pregnancy crown-rump length curves based on last menstrual period may overestimate gestational age. Using 2,803 crown-rump length measurements, we propose the current comprehensive charts for early pregnancy within a population with known gestational age for crown-rump length, gestational sac diameter, yolk sac diameter, and amniotic cavity diameter.
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.