Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40924092›Full record

ReviewArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2025

Usefulness and timing of the third-trimester ultrasound scan: a review of guidelines and underlying evidence.

Doaa Emam, Giulia Corbella, Caterina Poziello, Simona Fabozzo, Antonio Farina, Massimo Candiani, Karl Oliver Kagan, Paolo Ivo Cavoretto

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Doaa EmamDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, 20132, Milan, Italy.
Giulia CorbellaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, 20132, Milan, Italy.
Caterina PozielloDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, 20132, Milan, Italy.
Simona FabozzoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, 20132, Milan, Italy.
Antonio FarinaObstetric Unit, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Massimo CandianiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, 20132, Milan, Italy.
Karl Oliver KaganDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Tuebingen, Calwerstrasse 7, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Paolo Ivo CavorettoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, 20132, Milan, Italy. cavoretto.paolo@hsr.it.ORCID 0000-0001-8097-366X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesRecommendations regarding the use of third-trimester ultrasound lack universal consensus. Yet, there is evidence which supports its value in assessing fetal growth, fetal well-being, and a number of pregnancy-related complications. This literature review evaluates the available scientific evidence regarding its applications, usefulness, and the timing of the third-trimester scan in a low-risk population.

methodsA literature search (PubMed, Embase, Scopus; until April 1st, 2025) identified English-language studies dealing with third-trimester ultrasound screening, its aims, and its best timing. International and national guidelines were reviewed to assess the current recommendations. Large, high-quality studies were then used to evaluate the completeness of the current recommendations and to analyze additional parameters that could be considered when assessing the usefulness of a third-trimester ultrasound screening.

resultsSix international and national sets of guidelines regarding the third-trimester ultrasound were analyzed, showing wide variability in recommendations. While all six support its use, mainly for fetal growth, amniotic fluid, and placental assessment, only ISUOG and SIEOG specify the gestational age at which it should be performed (32-36 weeks). Fetal biometry and anatomy are universally suggested, while recommendations for Doppler studies, biophysical profile, and cervical length are inconsistent. Newer applications, such as pre-eclampsia screening and prediction of labor onset and intrapartum complications, are not yet included. Recent major studies in low-risk populations suggest 36-week gestation as the optimal screening time.

conclusionsThere is a broad recognition of third-trimester ultrasound being useful for fetal monitoring, but consensus is lacking regarding its routine use in low-risk populations, its outcomes and timing. Major evidence supports ultrasound screening at 36-week gestation in low-risk pregnancies to predict fetal growth restriction, macrosomia, structural anomalies, complications due to placental abnormalities, pre-eclampsia and onset of labor. When preceded by effective risk stratification done earlier in pregnancy, this strategy may enhance pregnancy management potentially improving maternal-fetal outcomes.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicPregnancy Trimester, ThirdUltrasonography, PrenatalFemaleFetal DevelopmentGestational AgeHumansPregnancyTime Factors36-week modelFetal growthFetal well-beingScreeningThird trimesterUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID40924092
PMCPMC12589340

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.