OBJECTIVES: 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.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (14 July 2015) and reference lists of retrieved articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA: 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.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS: 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.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: 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.
METHODS: CBCT was used to assess 200 joints in 100 subjects (mean age, 30.5 years). i-CAT CBCT software and The Mimics 16.0 software were employed to measure the volume, metrical size, position of each condyle sample and the thickness of the roof of the glenoid fossa (RGF).
RESULTS: No significant gender differences were noted in thickness of the RGF and condylar length; however condylar volume, width, height and the joint spaces were significantly greater among males. With regards to comparison of both TMJs, the means of condylar volume, width and length of the right TMJ were significantly higher, while the means of the left condylar height and thickness of RGF were higher. When comparing the condylar measurements and the thickness of RGF between the two ethnic groups, we found no significant difference for all measurements with exception of condylar height, which is higher among Chinese.
CONCLUSION: The similarity in measurements for Malays and Chinese may be due to their common origin. This information can be clinically useful in establishing the diagnostic criteria for condylar volume, metrical size, and position in the Malaysian East Asians population.