↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Symphysial fundal height (SFH) measurement in pregnancy for detecting abnormal fetal growth

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
349 Mendeley
Title
Symphysial fundal height (SFH) measurement in pregnancy for detecting abnormal fetal growth
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008136.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Japaraj Robert Peter, Jacqueline J Ho, Jayabalan Valliapan, Subramaniam Sivasangari

Abstract

Symphysis fundal height (SFH) measurement is commonly practiced primarily to detect fetal intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR). Undiagnosed IUGR may lead to fetal death as well as increase perinatal mortality and morbidity. The objective of this review is to compare SFH measurement with serial ultrasound measurement of fetal parameters or clinical palpation to detect abnormal fetal growth (IUGR and large-for-gestational age), and improving perinatal outcome. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (14 July 2015) and reference lists of retrieved articles. Randomised controlled trials including quasi-randomised and cluster-randomised trials involving pregnant women with singleton fetuses at 20 weeks' gestation and above comparing tape measurement of SFH with serial ultrasound measurement of fetal parameters or clinical palpation using anatomical landmarks. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. One trial involving 1639 women was included. It compared SFH measurement with clinical abdominal palpation.There was no difference in the two reported primary outcomes of incidence of small-for-gestational age (risk ratio (RR) 1.32; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.90, low quality evidence) or perinatal death.(RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.38 to 4.07; participants = 1639, low quality evidence). There were no data on the neonatal detection of large-for-gestational age (variously defined by authors). There was no difference in the reported secondary outcomes of neonatal hypoglycaemia, admission to neonatal nursery, admission to the neonatal nursery for IUGR (low quality evidence), induction of labour and caesarean section (very low quality evidence). The trial did not address the other outcomes specified in the 'Summary of findings' table (intrauterine death; neurodevelopmental outcome in childhood). GRADEpro software was used to assess the quality of evidence, downgrading of evidence was based on including a small single study with unclear risk of bias and a wide confidence interval crossing the line of no effect. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether SFH measurement is effective in detecting IUGR. We cannot therefore recommended any change of current practice. Further trials are needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 349 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
Unknown 345 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 72 21%
Student > Master 40 11%
Researcher 28 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 6%
Other 17 5%
Other 56 16%
Unknown 116 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 106 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 72 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 2%
Social Sciences 7 2%
Computer Science 6 2%
Other 29 8%
Unknown 122 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 November 2021.
All research outputs
#7,943,947
of 25,806,763 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,207
of 13,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,772
of 280,811 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#210
of 280 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,763 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,811 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 280 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.