OBJECTIVE: To construct a new size chart for fetal femur length. DESIGN: A prospective, cross sectional study of fetuses scanned once only for the purpose of the study at gestations between 12 and 42 weeks. SETTING: The routine ultrasound department of a London teaching hospital. SUBJECTS: The fetuses of 663 women seen in the routine antenatal booking clinic whose ultrasound and menstrual dates agreed within 10 days. RESULTS: Femur length was measured on 649 of the 663 fetuses. A linear-cubic regression model was fitted to estimate the mean and a separate linear regression to estimate the standard deviation. Centiles were derived by combining these two regression models, assuming that the measurements have a normal distribution at each gestational age. A new chart for femur size is presented and compared with previously published data. CONCLUSIONS: We have constructed a new size chart for fetal femur length taking into consideration the increasing variability with increasing gestational age. We have compared our chart with other published data, and believe that the differences seen may be largely due to methodological differences.
OBJECTIVE: To construct a new size chart for fetal femur length. DESIGN: A prospective, cross sectional study of fetuses scanned once only for the purpose of the study at gestations between 12 and 42 weeks. SETTING: The routine ultrasound department of a London teaching hospital. SUBJECTS: The fetuses of 663 women seen in the routine antenatal booking clinic whose ultrasound and menstrual dates agreed within 10 days. RESULTS: Femur length was measured on 649 of the 663 fetuses. A linear-cubic regression model was fitted to estimate the mean and a separate linear regression to estimate the standard deviation. Centiles were derived by combining these two regression models, assuming that the measurements have a normal distribution at each gestational age. A new chart for femur size is presented and compared with previously published data. CONCLUSIONS: We have constructed a new size chart for fetal femur length taking into consideration the increasing variability with increasing gestational age. We have compared our chart with other published data, and believe that the differences seen may be largely due to methodological differences.
Authors: Holger W Unger; Stephan Karl; Regina A Wangnapi; Peter Siba; Glen Mola; Jane Walker; Ivo Mueller; Maria Ome; Stephen J Rogerson Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2014-11-10 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: Adi L Tarca; Roberto Romero; Dereje W Gudicha; Offer Erez; Edgar Hernandez-Andrade; Lami Yeo; Gaurav Bhatti; Percy Pacora; Eli Maymon; Sonia S Hassan Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Helena Lucia Barroso Dos Reis; Karina da Silva Araujo; Lilian Paula Ribeiro; Daniel Ribeiro Da Rocha; Drielli Petri Rosato; Mauro Romero Leal Passos; Paulo Roberto Merçon De Vargas Journal: Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo Date: 2015 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.846
Authors: E Morales; A Rodriguez; D Valvi; C Iñiguez; A Esplugues; J Vioque; L S Marina; A Jiménez; M Espada; C R Dehli; A Fernández-Somoano; M Vrijheid; J Sunyer Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2014-09-05 Impact factor: 5.095
Authors: Nicholas C Harvey; Zoe A Cole; Sarah R Crozier; Georgia Ntani; Pamela A Mahon; Sian M Robinson; Hazel M Inskip; Keith M Godfrey; Elaine M Dennison; Cyrus Cooper Journal: Pediatr Res Date: 2013-07-15 Impact factor: 3.756