Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reference values of fetal ultrasound biometry: results of a prospective cohort study in Lithuania

  • Maternal-Fetal Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the study was to construct a reference range for the Lithuanian population for fetal biparietal diameter (BPD), occipitofrontal diameter (OFD), head circumference (HC), abdominal circumference (AC) and femur length (FL) and to compare them with the old local and current international reference values.

Methods

A prospective cross-sectional study was carried out in secondary referral centres Vilnius University Hospital Santariškių Klinikos Centro Affiliate in 2008–2009 and Vilnius Maternity Hospital in 2009–2014. The fetal biometry of 556 fetuses between 12 and 42 weeks gestation was performed. BPD, OFD, HC, AC and FL were measured. The data were collected and the analysis was performed using statistical programs MS Excel, SPSS and Matlab. Different regression models were fitted to calculate the mean and standard deviation at each gestational age for each parameter.

Results

The biometric measurements of HC, BPD, OFD as well as AC and FL were performed for 556 fetuses. The centile charts, tables and regression formulae of the biometric parameters were constructed. The comparison of the current charts with those of other two studies revealed no significant differences of HC centiles. AC values were similar to those presented in the international study INTERGROWTH-21 and significantly higher in comparison to the study for the Lithuanian population conducted by Ališauskas (1980). FL values, especially in late pregnancy, were significantly smaller in the INTERGROWTH-21 study compared to our charts; however, there were no significant differences of the 50th centile compared to the results from Ališauskas.

Conclusions

We have constructed and presented centile charts, tables and regression formulae for fetal biometry for the Lithuanian population and compared them with the results of two other studies. The significant differences between our centile charts and those from INTERGROWTH-21 imply the necessity to have local standards of fetal biometry, while the differences of our results from the older study in the same population show the importance of updating fetal biometry reference charts for every generation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hanson MA, Gluckman PD (2014) Early developmental conditioning of later health and disease: Physiology or pathophysiology? Physiol Rev 94:1027–1076

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Gardosi J (2004) Customized fetal growth standards: rationale and clinical application. Semin Perinatol 28:33–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kiserud T, Benachi A, Hecher K, Perez RG, Carvalho J, Piaggio G, Platt LD (2018) The World Health Organization fetal growth charts: concept, findings, interpretation, and application. Am J Obstet Gynecol 218(2S):S619–S629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.12.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kiserud T, Piaggio G, Carroli G, Widmer M, Carvalho J, Neerup Jensen L, Giordano D, Cecatti JG, Abdel Aleem H, Talegawkar SA et al (2017) The World Health Organization fetal growth charts: A multinational longitudinal study of ultrasound biometric measurements and estimated fetal weight. PLoS Med 14:e1002220. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002220 (Erratum in: PLoS Med. 2017 Mar 24;14 (3):e1002284. Erratum in: PLoS Med. 2017 Apr 20;14 (4):e1002301. Erratum in: PLoS Med. 2021 Jan 7;18(1):e1003526. PMID: 28118360; PMCID: PMC5261648)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. National Collaborating Centre for Women and Children’s Health: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2008) Guidance Antenatal Care: Routine Care for the Healthy Pregnant Woman. RCOG Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  6. Seto TL, Tabangin ME, Langdon G, Mangeot C, Dawodu A, Steinhoff M, Narendran V (2016) Racial disparities in cord blood vitamin D levels and its association with small-for-gestational-age infants. J Perinatol 36:623–628. https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2016.64

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Parikh LI, Nolan III J, Tefera E, Driggers R (2014) Fetal biometry: does patient ethnicity matter? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 27:500–504. https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2013.820696

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Papageorghiou AT, Ohuma EO, Altman DG, Todros T, Cheikh Ismail L, Lambert A, Jaffer YA, Bertino E, Gravett MG, Purwar M et al (2014) International standards for fetal growth based on serial ultrasound measurements: the fetal growth longitudinal study of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project. The Lancet 384:869–879

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Salomon LJ, Bernard JP, Duyme M, Buvat I, Ville Y (2005) The impact of choice of reference charts and equations on the assessment of fetal biometry. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 25:559–565

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Paladini D, Rustico M, Viora E, Giani U, Bruzzese D, Campogrande M, Martinelli P (2005) Fetal size charts for the Italian population. Normative curves of head, abdomen and long bones. Prenat Diagn 25:456–464

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kankeow K (2007) Charts of fetal biometries at Sukhothai Hospital. J Med Assoc Thai 90:844–851

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lai FM, Yeo GS (1995) Reference charts of foetal biometry in Asians. Singap Med J 36:628–636

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Jung SI, Lee YH, Moon MH, Song MJ, Min JY, Kim JA, Park JH, Yang JH, Kim MY, Chung JH et al (2007) Reference charts and equations of Korean fetal biometry. Prenat Diagn 27:545–551

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Créquat J, Duyme M, Brodaty G (2000) Biometry 2000. Fetal growth charts by the French College of fetal ultrasonography and the Inserm U 155. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 28:435–445 (In French)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nasrat H, Bondagji NS (2005) Ultrasound biometry of Arabian fetuses. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 88:173–178

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ashrafunnessa, Jehan AH, Chowdhury SB, Sultana F, Haque JA, Khatun S, Karim MA (2003) Construction of fetal charts for biparietal diameter, fetal abdominal circumference and femur length in Bangladeshi population. Bangladesh Med Res Counc Bull 29:67–77

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Yunis KA, Khawaja M, Beydoun H, Nassif Y, Khogali M, Tamim H (2007) National Collaborative Perinatal Neonatal Network (NCPNN). Intrauterine growth standards in a developing country: a study of singleton livebirths at 28–42 weeks’ gestation. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 21:387–396

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Thame M, Osmond C, Fletcher H, Forrester TE (2003) Ultrasound derived fetal growth curves for a Jamaican population. West Indian Med J 52:99–110

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Saksiriwuttho P, Ratanasiri T, Komwilaisak R (2007) Fetal biometry charts for normal pregnant women in northeastern Thailand. J Med Assoc Thai 90:1963–1969

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Salomon LJ, Duyme M, Crequat J, Brodaty G, Talmant C, Fries N, Althuser M (2006) French fetal biometry: reference equations and comparison with other charts. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 28:193–198

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jacquemyn Y, Sys SU, Verdonk P (2000) Fetal biometry in different ethnic groups. Early Hum Dev 57:1–13

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Schluter PJ, Pritchard G, Gill MA (2004) Ultrasonic fetal size measurements in Brisbane Australia. Australas Radiol 48:480–486 (Erratum in: Australas Radiol. 2005;49:345)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Shohat T, Romano-Zelekha O (2001) Israel Network for Ultrasound in obstetrics and gynecology. Ultrasonographic measurements of fetal femur length and biparietal diameter in an Israeli population. Isr Med Assoc J 3:166–168

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Westerway SC, Davison A, Cowell S (2000) Ultrasonic fetal measurements: new Australian standards for the new millennium. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 40:297–302

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Merialdi M, Caulfield LE, Zavaleta N, Figueroa A, Costigan KA, Dominici F, Dipietro JA (2005) Fetal growth in Peru: comparisons with international fetal size charts and implications for fetal growth assessment. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 26:123–128

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Schwärzler P, Bland JM, Holden D, Campbell S, Ville Y (2004) Sex-specific antenatal reference growth charts for uncomplicated singleton pregnancies at 15–40 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 23:23–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. L′ubuský M, Mícková I, Procházka M, Dzvincuk P, Malá K, Cízek L, Janout V (2006) Discrepancy of ultrasound biometric parameters of the head (HC–head circumference, BPD–biparietal diameter) and femur length in relation to sex of the fetus and duration of pregnancy. Ceska Gynekol 71:169–172

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. De Reu P, Smits LJ, Oosterbaan HP, Snijders RJ, De Reu-Cuppens MJ, Nijhuis JG (2007) Gender- and parity-specific reference charts for fetal size in low risk singleton pregnancies at the onset of the third trimester. J Perinat Med 35:51–61

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Johnsen SL, Wilsgaard T, Rasmussen S, Sollien R, Kiserud T (2006) Longitudinal reference charts for growth of the fetal head, abdomen and femur. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 127:172–185 (Epub 2005 Nov 11)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Pang MW, Leung TN, Sahota DS, Lau TK, Chang AM (2003) Customizing fetal biometric charts. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 22:271–276

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Knitza J, Kurmanavičius J, Faschingbauer F, Wisser J (2020) Comparison of current Swiss fetal biometry reference charts with reference charts from 1999. Are fetuses getting bigger? Ultraschall Med 41:410–417. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0591-3206 (Epub 2018 May 24. PMID: 29797308)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kurmanavičius J, Wright EM, Royston P, Wisser J, Huch R, Huch A, Zimmermann R (1999) Fetal ultrasound biometry: 1. Head reference values. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 106:126–135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kurmanavičius J, Wright EM, Royston P, Zimmermann R, Huch R, Huch A, Wisser J (1999) Fetal ultrasound biometry: 2. Abdomen and femur length reference values. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 106:136–143

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Royston P, Wright E (1998) How to construct ‘normal ranges’ for fetal variables. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 11:30–38

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. O’Gorman N, Salomon LJ (2018) Fetal biometry to assess the size and growth of the fetus. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 49:3–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Salomon LJ, Alfirevic Z, Da Silva Costa F, Deter RL, Figueras F, Ghi T, Glanc P, Khalil A, Lee W, Napolitano R et al (2019) ISUOG Practice Guidelines: Ultrasound assessment of fetal biometry and growth. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 53:715–723. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.20272

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Salomon LJ, Alfirevic Z, Berghella V, Bilardo C, Hernandez-Andrade E, Johnsen SL, Kalache K, Leung K-Y, Malinger G, Munoz H et al (2011) Practice guidelines for performance of the routine mid-trimester fetal ultrasound scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 37:116–126

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Sharman RS, Deter RL, Park SK (1985) Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body and femur measurements—a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 151:333–337

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Weiner CP, Sabbagha RE, Vaisrub N, Socol ML (1985) Ultrasonic fetal weight prediction: Role of head circumference and femur length. Obstet Gynecol 65:812–817

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Roberts AB, Lee AJ, James AG (1985) Ultrasonic estimation of fetal weight: a new predictive model incorporating femur length to the low-birth-weight fetus. J Clin Ultrasound 13:555–559

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Friebe-Hoffmann U, Dobravsky L, Friedl TWP, Janni W, Knippel AJ, Siegmann HJ, Kozlowski P (2022) The femur too short? 1373 fetuses with short femur during second-trimester screening. Arch Gynecol Obstet. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-021-06394-z (Epub ahead of print. PMID: 35015136)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Hiersch L, Lipworth H, Kingdom J, Barrett J, Melamed N (2021) Identification of the optimal growth chart and threshold for the prediction of antepartum stillbirth. Arch Gynecol Obstet 303:381–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05747-4 (Epub 2020 Aug 14 PMID: 32803394)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Vintzileos AM, Campbell WA, Rodis JF, Bors Koefoed R, Nochimson DJ (1987) Fetal weight estimation formulas with head, abdominal, femur, and thigh circumference measurements. Am J Obstet Gynecol 157:410–414

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Sharman RS, Deter RL, Park SK (1985) Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body and femur measurements: a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185:151–333

    Google Scholar 

  45. Frančišković V, Zaputović S, Krajina R, Petrović O (2011) Fetal ultrasound biometry for pregnant population in the County of Primorje-Gorski Kotar (Croatia). J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 24:1277–1282. https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2010.548884

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Briceño F, Restrepo H, Paredes R, Cifuentes R (2014) Charts for fetal age assessment based on fetal sonographic biometry in a population from Cali Colombia. J Ultrasound Med 33:184. https://doi.org/10.7863/ultra.32.12.2135 (J Ultrasound Med. 2013;32:2135–2143)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Zhang Y, Meng H, Jiang Y, Xu Z, Ouyang Y, Li S, Chen Q, Wu Q, Li R, Ru T et al (2019) Chinese fetal biometry: reference equations and comparison with charts from other populations. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 32:1507–1515. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2017.1410787

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Kwon JY, Park IY, Wie JH, Choe S, Kim CJ, Shin JC (2014) Fetal biometry in the Korean population: reference charts and comparison with charts from other populations. Prenat Diagn 34:927–934. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4394

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Akhtar W, Ali A, Arain MA, Saeed F, Siddiqui S, Memon A (2011) Sonographic fetal biometry charts for a Pakistani cohort. East Mediterr Health J 17:969–975. https://doi.org/10.26719/2011.17.12.969

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Daniel-Spiegel E, Mandel M, Nevo D, Ben-Chetrit A, Shen O, Shalev E, Yagel S (2016) Fetal biometry in the Israeli population: new reference charts. Isr Med Assoc J 18:40–44

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Jiang X, Zhang YH, Li Y, Ma X, Zhu YS, Shang L (2013) Reference charts and equations of fetal biometry for normal singleton pregnant women in Shaanxi, China. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 40:393–398

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Barrios-Prieto E, Martínez-Ceccopieri DA, Torres-Mercado AJ, Fajardo-Dueñas S, Panduro-Barón JG (2013) Tablas de referencia de biometria fetal para la población del Occidente de México [Reference tables of fetal biometry for people in the West of Mexico]. Spanish. Ginecol Obstet Mex. 81:310–320

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Shirazi M, Niroomanes S, Rahimi F, Golshahi F (2019) Ultrasound assessment of fetal biometry in Iranian normal pregnancies. Int J Prev Med 10:46. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijpvm.IJPVM_101_17

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Araujo E Jr, Martins Santana EF, Martins WP, Elito J Jr, Ruano R, Pires CR, Filho SM (2014) Reference charts of fetal biometric parameters in 31,476 Brazilian singleton pregnancies. J Ultrasound Med 33:1185–1191. https://doi.org/10.7863/ultra.33.7.1185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Briceño F, Restrepo H, Paredes R, Cifuentes R (2013) Fetal size charts for a population from Cali, Colombia: Sonographic measurements of biparietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference, and femur length. J Ultrasound Med 32:1215–1225. https://doi.org/10.7863/ultra.32.7.1215

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Polášková P, Kuběna A, Calda P (2014) Prenatální růstové křivky české populace [Prenatal growth curves of the Czech population]. Ceska Gynekol 79:276–282

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Sotiriadis A, Eleftheriades M, Chatzinikolaou F, Hassiakos D, Chrousos GP, Pervanidou P (2016) National curves of foetal growth in singleton foetuses of Greek origin. Eur J Clin Invest 46:425–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.12611

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Bricelj K, Blickstein I, Bržan-Šimenc G, Janša V, Lučovnik M, Verdenik I, Trojner-Bregar A, Tul N (2017) Growth curves for twins in Slovenia. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 30:479–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2016.1175425 (Epub 2016 Jun 13 PMID: 27053137)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Torres X, Bennasar M, Eixarch E, Rueda C, Goncé A, Muñoz M, Marimón E, Martínez JM, Gratacós E, Figueras F (2018) Gender-specific antenatal growth reference charts in monochorionic twins. Fetal Diagn Ther 44:202–209. https://doi.org/10.1159/000484555 (Epub 2017 Dec 21 PMID: 29268248)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Shivkumar S, Himes KP, Hutcheon JA, Platt RW (2015) An ultrasound-based fetal weight reference for twins. Am J Obstet Gynecol 213(224):e1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.04.015 (Epub 2015 Apr 18 PMID: 25899626)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. van Vuuren SH, Damen-Elias HAM, Stigter RH, van der Doef R, Goldschmeding R, de Jong TPVM, Westers P, Visser GHA, Pistorius LR (2012) Size and volume charts of fetal kidney, renal pelvis and adrenal gland. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 40:659–664. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.11169 (PMID: 22581671)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Brennan S, Kandasamy Y, Rudd D, Schneider M, Watson D (2020) Fetal kidney charts of a novel measurement of the renal parenchymal thickness to evaluate fetal kidney growth and potential function. Prenat Diagn 40:860–869. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.5701 (Epub 2020 Apr 23 PMID: 32277493)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Cignini P, Padula F, Giorlandino M, Brutti P, Alfò M, Giannarelli D, Mastrandrea ML, D’Emidio L, Vacca L, Aloisi A et al (2014) Reference charts for fetal corpus callosum length: a prospective cross-sectional study of 2950 fetuses. J Ultrasound Med 33:1065–1078. https://doi.org/10.7863/ultra.33.6.1065 (PMID: 24866614)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Pashaj S, Merz E, Wellek S (2013) Biometry of the fetal corpus callosum by three-dimensional ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 42:691–698. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.12501 (PMID: 23649512)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Leibovitz Z, Haratz KK, Malinger G, Shapiro I, Pressman C (2014) Fetal posterior fossa dimensions: normal and anomalous development assessed in mid-sagittal cranial plane by three-dimensional multiplanar sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 43:147–153. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.12508 (Epub 2014 Jan 7 PMID: 23671019)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Altman D (1993) Construction of age-related reference centiles using absolute residuals. Stat Med 12:917–924

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Chitty LS, Altman DG, Henderson A, Campbell S (1994) Charts of fetal size: 2. Head measurements. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 101:35–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1994.tb13007.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Chitty LS, Altman DG, Henderson A, Campbell S (1994) Charts of fetal size: 3. Abdominal measurements. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 101:125–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1994.tb13077.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Chitty LS, Altman DG, Henderson A, Campbell S (1994) Charts of fetal size: 4. Femur length. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 101:132–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1994.tb13078.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Rempen A (1991) Biometrie in der Frühgravidität. [Biometrics in early pregnancy]. Gynäkologie Geburtshilfe 15:23–28

    Google Scholar 

  71. Campbell S, Thoms A (1977) Ultrasound measurement of the fetal head to abdomen circumference ratio in the assessment of growth retardation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 84:165–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1977.tb12550.x (PMID: 843490)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Hansmann M, Hackelöer BJ, Staudach A (1985) Normale Anatomie des Fetus im 2 und 3 Trimenon. In: Hansmann M, Hackelöer BJ, Staudach A (eds) Ultraschalldiagnostik in Geburtshilfe und Gynäkologie, Chapter 7. Springer, Berlin, pp 91–169

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  73. Campbell S, Wilkin D (1975) Ultrasonic measurement of fetal abdomen circumference in the estimation of fetal weight. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 82:689–697

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. NCD Risk Factor Collaboration (NCD-RisC) (2016) A century of trends in adult human height. Elife 26(5):e13410. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.13410 (PMID: 27458798; PMCID: PMC4961475)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. McGrath JJ, Barnett AG, Eyles DW (2005) The association between birth weight, season of birth and latitude. Ann Hum Biol 32:547–559

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Wells JC (2002) Thermal environment and human birth weight. J Theor Bio 214:413–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Wells JC, Cole TJ (2002) Birth weight and environmental heat load: a between-population analysis. Am J Phys Anthropol 119:276–282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Kelly Y, Panico L, Bartley M, Marmot M, Nazroo J, Sacker A (2008) Why does birthweight vary among ethnic groups in the UK? Findings from the millennium cohort study. J Public Health (oxf) 31:131–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other supports were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Vilnius Maternity Hospital, 18A Tyzenhauzų St, 02106, Vilnius, Lithuania

    Bronius Žaliūnas

  2. Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania

    Bronius Žaliūnas, Vaidilė Jakaitė, Daiva Bartkevičienė & Kristina Norvilaitė

  3. Centre of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania

    Vaidilė Jakaitė, Daiva Bartkevičienė & Kristina Norvilaitė

  4. Department of Obstetrics, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Juozas Kurmanavičius

  5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Spitäler Schaffhausen, Schaffhausen, Switzerland

    Karolina Passerini

Authors
  1. Bronius Žaliūnas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vaidilė Jakaitė
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Juozas Kurmanavičius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Daiva Bartkevičienė
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kristina Norvilaitė
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Karolina Passerini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

BŽ: project development, data collection and management, and manuscript writing and editing; VJ: data collection and management, data analysis, and manuscript writing and editing; JK: project development; DB: data collection and manuscript editing; KN: data collection and manuscript editing; KP: project development, data analysis, and manuscript editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bronius Žaliūnas.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethics approval

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was carried out under the permission of the Lithuanian Bioethics Committee with the approval date of 17 April 2008.

Consent to participate

All the women provided voluntary signed consent to participate in the study.

Consent to publisher

All the patients gave an informed consent after the procedure had been fully explained.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Žaliūnas, B., Jakaitė, V., Kurmanavičius, J. et al. Reference values of fetal ultrasound biometry: results of a prospective cohort study in Lithuania. Arch Gynecol Obstet 306, 1503–1517 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-022-06437-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-022-06437-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation