PDF herunterladen
Ultraschall Med 2019; 40(06): 772
DOI: 10.1055/a-0967-5282
Letter to the Editor
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Response to Letter to the Editor

Josef Wisser
1   Clinic of Obstetrics, University-Hospital Zürich
,
Jouzas Kurmanavicius
1   Clinic of Obstetrics, University-Hospital Zürich
,
Johannes Knitza
2   Clinic of Internal Medicine 3, University Hospital Erlangen, Germany
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
08. November 2019 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Leserbrief zu:

Which reference ranges should one use for fetal biometry?Ultraschall Med 2019; 40(06): 771-771
DOI: 10.1055/a-0967-4660

We appreciate very much that our article “Comparison of Current Swiss Fetal Biometry Reference Charts with Reference Charts from 1999. Are Fetuses Getting Bigger?” [1] has found interested and critical readers.

 

  • References

  • 1 Knitza J, Kurmanavicius J, Faschingbauer F. et al. Comparison of Current Swiss Fetal Biometry Reference Charts with Reference Charts from 1999. Are Fetuses Getting Bigger?. Ultraschall in Med 2018;
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Kurmanavicius J, Wright EM, Royston P. et al. Fetal ultrasound biometry: 1. Head reference values. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999; 106: 126-135
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Salomon LJ, Bernard JP, Duyme M. et al. The impact of choice of reference charts and equations on the assessment of fetal biometry. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 25: 559-565
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Balsyte D, Schaffer L, Burkhardt T. et al. Continuous independent quality control for fetal ultrasound biometry provided by the cumulative summation technique. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010; 35: 449-455
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar