4.6 Article

Measurement of symphysis fundal height for gestational age estimation in low-to-middle- income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 17, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272718

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1130198]
  2. Harvard Catalyst | The Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center (National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health Award) [UL 1TR002541]
  3. Harvard University and its affiliated academic healthcare centers
  4. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Health and Child Development [K23 HD091390-01]
  5. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1130198] Funding Source: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This systematic review examines the methods and accuracy of symphysis fundal height (SFH) measurement for estimating gestational age (GA) in low- and middle-income countries. The findings suggest that SFH measurement is inaccurate and should not be used for GA dating. Improving access to quality ultrasound early in pregnancy is crucial for improving gestational age assessment in LMIC.
In low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), measurement of symphysis fundal height (SFH) is often the only available method of estimating gestational age (GA) in pregnancy. This systematic review aims to summarize methods of SFH measurement and assess the accuracy of SFH for the purpose of GA estimation. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Web of Science, POPLINE, and WHO Global Health Libraries from January 1980 through November 2021. For SFH accuracy, we pooled the variance of the mean difference between GA confirmed by ultrasound versus SFH. Of 1,003 studies identified, 37 studies were included. Nineteen different SFH measurement techniques and 13 SFH-to-GA conversion methods were identified. In pooled analysis of five studies (n = 5838 pregnancies), 71% (95% CI: 66-77%) of pregnancies dated by SFH were within +/- 14 days of ultrasound confirmed dating. Using the 1 cm SFH = 1 wk assumption, SFH underestimated GA compared with ultrasound-confirmed GA (mean bias: -14.0 days) with poor accuracy (95% limits of agreement [LOA]: +/- 42.8 days; n = 3 studies, 2447 pregnancies). Statistical modeling of three serial SFH measurements performed better, but accuracy was still poor (95% LOA +/- 33 days; n = 4 studies, 4391 pregnancies). In conclusion, there is wide variation in SFH measurement and SFH-to-GA conversion techniques. SFH is inaccurate for estimating GA and should not be used for GA dating. Increasing access to quality ultrasonography early in pregnancy should be prioritized to improve gestational age assessment in LMIC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available