ArticleScientific reports2025
New reference values for ultrasound fetal biometry in Japanese population and comparison with other studies.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Population-specific validation of fetal weight formulas: Evidence from a multicenter near-delivery cohort.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- Closely Monitored Successful Full-Term Delivery in a Woman With Spondyloepiphyseal Dysplasia Congenita: A Case Report and Literature Review.The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research · 2026Review
- Agreement Between WHO and Thai Fetal Growth Charts for Classifying Estimated Fetal Weight in Thai Singleton Pregnancies: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study.Obstetrics and gynecology international · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Given the decline in birthweights over the past 30 years in Japan and advancements in ultrasound technology, this study aimed to establish new reference values for ultrasound fetal biometry in Japan and to compare them with international and Asian studies. We conducted a cross-sectional prospective study involving singleton pregnancies who received prenatal checkups at obstetric facilities across Japan. During routine prenatal care, ultrasound measurements-biparietal diameter (BPD), head circumference (HC), abdominal circumference (AC), and femur length (FL)-were recorded. Estimated fetal weight (EFW) was calculated using both the Shinozuka formula, commonly used in Japan, and the Hadlock-3 formula, widely used internationally. Using the collected data, we developed gestational-age-specific reference values for BPD, HC, AC, FL, and EFW by applying best-fitted fractional polynomial regression, and compared them with existing international standards and reference values from other Asian countries. The mean EFW calculated by the Hadlock formula in this study tended to be smaller than that reported in other international studies, and BPD, HC, AC, and FL were also generally smaller than those observed in other Asian references. These findings indicate that fetal biometry values in the Japanese population are smaller not only than international standards but also compared with those from other Asian countries, and suggest that these population-specific data may contribute to improving the accuracy of fetal growth assessment in Japan and other parts of Asia.
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.