↓ Skip to main content

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

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
206 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 206 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
Unknown 201 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 52 25%
Student > Master 28 14%
Researcher 25 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 8%
Student > Postgraduate 12 6%
Other 38 18%
Unknown 34 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 78 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 55 27%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Psychology 5 2%
Computer Science 5 2%
Other 15 7%
Unknown 41 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 20 April 2016.
All research outputs
#2,973,461
of 16,023,082 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,643
of 11,358 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,878
of 368,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#148
of 224 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,023,082 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,358 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
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 368,593 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 224 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.