Roex, A, Nikpoor, P, Van, Eerd, Hodyl, N, Dekker, G. Serial plotting on customised fundal height charts results in doubling of the antenatal detection of small for gestational age fetuses in nulliparous women. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynecol 2012;52:78–82.Google Scholar

Gardosi, J, Francis, A. Controlled trial of fundal height measurement plotted on customised antenatal growth charts. BJOG 1999;106:309–17.Google Scholar

Chang, TC, Robson, SC, Boys, RJ, Spencer, JA. Prediction of the small for gestational age infant: Which ultrasonic measurement is best? Obstet Gynecol 1992;80:1030–8.Google ScholarPubMed

Coomarasamy, A, Connock, M, Thornton, JG, Khan, KS. Accuracy of ultrasound biometry in the prediction of macrosomia: A systematic quantitative review. BJOG 2005;112(11):1461–6.Google Scholar

Chauhan, SP, Magann, EF. Screening for fetal growth restriction. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2006;49:284–94.Google Scholar

Alfirevic, Z, Stampalija, T, Medley, N. Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in normal pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD001450. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001450.pub4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Morris, RK, Malin, G, Robson, SC, Kleijnen, J, Zamora, J, Khan, KS. Fetal umbilical artery Doppler to predict compromise of fetal/neonatal wellbeing in high-risk populations: systematic review and bivariate meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011;37:135–42.Google Scholar

Serra, V, Moulden, M, Bellver, J, Redman, CW. The value of the short-term fetal heart rate variation for timing the delivery of the growth-retarded fetuses. BJOG 2008;115:1101–7.Google Scholar

Yagel, S, Kivilevitch, Z, Cohen, SM, Valsky, DV, Messing, B, Shen, O, et al. The fetal venous system, Part II: Ultrasound evaluation of the fetus with congenital venous system malformation or developing circulatory compromise. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010;36:93–111.Google Scholar

Thornton, JG, Lilford, RJ. Do we need randomised trials of antenatal tests of fetal wellbeing? BJOG 1993; 100:197–200.Google Scholar

The GRIT Study Group. A randomised trial of timed delivery for the compromised preterm fetus: Short term outcomes and Bayesian interpretation. BJOG 2003;110:27–32.Google Scholar

The GRIT Study Group. Infant wellbeing at 2 years of age in the Growth Restriction Intervention trial (GRIT): A multicentred randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004;364:513–19.Google Scholar

Walker, D-M, Marlow, N, Upstone, L, Gross, H. Hornbuckle, J, Vail, A, Wolke, D, Thornton, JG on behalf of the GRIT Study Group. The Growth Restriction Intervention Trial (GRIT): Long-term outcomes in a randomised trial of timing of delivery in fetal growth restriction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;204(1):341–9.Google Scholar

Boers, K, Bijlenga, D, Vijgen, S, Van der Post, J, Bekedam, D, Kwee, A, Van der Salm, P, Van Pampus, M, Spaanderman, M, De Boer, K, Bremer, H, Duvekot, J, Hasaart, T, Delemarre, F, Bloemenkamp, K, Van Meir, C, Willekes, C, Wijnen, E, Rijken, M, le Cessie, S, Roumen, F, Thornton, JG, Van Lith, J, Mol, BW, Scherjon, S (2011) Induction versus expectant monitoring for intrauterine growth restriction at term (the DIGITAT trial). BMJ 2011;342:35.Google Scholar

Boers, KE, Van Wyk, L, Van der Post, JAM, et al. Neonatal morbidity after induction vs expectant monitoring in intrauterine growth restriction at term: A subanalysis of the DIGITAT RCT. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;206:344.e1–7.Google Scholar

Lees, CC, Marlow, N, Van Wassenaer-Leemhuis, A, et al. for the TRUFFLE study group. Two year neurodevelopmental and intermediate perinatal outcomes in infants with very preterm fetal growth restriction (TRUFFLE): A randomised trial. Lancet 2015;385:2162–72.Google Scholar

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin no 134: Fetal growth restriction. Obstet Gynecol 2013;121(5):1122–33.Google Scholar

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (RCOG) Guideline Committee. The investigation and management of the small for gestational age fetus. Green top guideline No. 31. Jan 2014 www.rcog.org.uk/en/guidelines-research-services/guidelines/gtg31/.Google Scholar

New Zealand Maternal and Fetal Medicine Network (NZMFMN) Guideline for the management of suspected small for gestational age singleton pregnancies and infants after 34 weeks gestation. 2014 www.asum.com.au/newsite/Files/Documents/Resources/NZMFM%20SGA%20Guideline_September%202013.pdf.Google Scholar

Health Service Executive (Ireland). Fetal growth restriction – recognition, diagnosis and management. 2014 www.hse.ie/eng/about/Who/clinical/natclinprog/obsandgynaeprogramme/29-_Fetal_Growth_Restriction-IUGR_CPG_final_.pdf.Google Scholar

Nederlandse Vereniging voor Obstetrie & Gynaecologie (NVOG). Foetale Groeibeperking 2008. http://nvog-documenten.nl/index.php?pagina=/richtlijn/item/pagina.php&richtlijn_id=828.Google Scholar

Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Canada (SOGC) Intrauterine growth restriction: screening, diagnosis and management. 2013 http://sogc.org/guidelines/intrauterine-growth-restriction-screening-diagnosis-management/.Google Scholar

Papageorghiou, AT, Ohuma EO, Altman DG, Todros T, Cheikh Ismail L, Lambert A, Jaffer YA, Bertino E, Gravett MG, Purwar M, Noble JA, Pang R, Victora CG, Barros FC, Carvalho M, Salomon LJ, Bhutta ZA, Kennedy SH, Villar J; International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st Century (INTERGROWTH-21st). International standards for fetal growth based on serial ultrasound measurements: the Fetal Growth Longitudinal Study of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project. Lancet 2014 Sep 6;384(9946):869–79.Google Scholar

Papageorghiou, AT, Ohuma EO, Gravett MG, Hirst J, da Silveira MF, Lambert A, Carvalho M, Jaffer YA, Altman DG, Noble JA, Bertino E, Purwar M, Pang R, Cheikh Ismail L, Victora C, Bhutta ZA, Kennedy SH, Villar J; International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st Century (INTERGROWTH-21st). International standards for symphysis-fundal height based on serial measurements from the Fetal Growth Longitudinal Study of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project: prospective cohort study in eight countries. BMJ 2016 Nov 7;355:i5662.Google Scholar

Kiserud, T, Piaggio G, Carroli G, Widmer M, Carvalho J, Neerup Jensen L, Giordano D, Cecatti JG, Abdel Aleem H, Talegawkar SA, Benachi A, Diemert A, Tshefu Kitoto A, Thinkhamrop J, Lumbiganon P, Tabor A, Kriplani A, Gonzalez Perez R, Hecher K, Hanson MA, Gülmezoglu AM, Platt LD. The World Health Organization fetal growth charts: A multinational longitudinal study of ultrasound biometric measurements and estimated fetal weight. PLoS Med 2017 Jan 24;14(1):e1002220.Google Scholar

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Hypertension in pregnancy: The management of hypertensive disorders during pregnancy. 2010 www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg107.Google Scholar

Magee, LA, Pels, A, Helewa, M, Rey, E, Von Dadelszen, P, Hypertension Guideline Committee. Prediction and prevention. In: Diagnosis, evaluation, and management of the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: Executive summary. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2014 May;36(5):425–6.Google Scholar

World Health Organization (WHO). WHO recommendations for the prevention and treatment of pre-eclampsia and eclampsia. 2011. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789241548335_eng.pdf.Google Scholar

Askie, LM, Duley, L Henderson-Smart, DJ, Stewart, LA, on behalf of the PARIS Collaborative Group. (2007) Antiplatelet agents for prevention of pre-eclampsia: A meta-analysis of individual patient data. Lancet 2007;369:1791–8.Google Scholar

Dugoff, L, Hobbins, JC, Malone, FD, Vidaver, J, Sullivan, L, Canick, JA, et al. Quad screen as a predictor of adverse pregnancy outcome. Obstet Gynecol 2005;106 (2):260–7.Google Scholar

Dugoff, L. First- and second-trimester maternal serum markers for aneuploidy and adverse obstetric outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2010;115:1052–61.Google Scholar

Alfirevic, Z, Stampalija, T, Gyte, GML. Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in high-risk pregnancies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013, Issue 11. Art. No.: CD007529. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007529.pub3.Google Scholar

Calvert, JP, Crean, EE, Newcombe, RG, Pearson, JF. Antenatal screening by measurement of symphysis-fundus height. BMJ 1982;285:846.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Quaranta, P, Currell, R, Redman, CW, Robinson, JS. Prediction of small-for-dates infants by measurement of symphysial-fundal-height. BJOG 1981;88(2):115–19.Google Scholar

Robert, PJ, Ho, JJ, Valliapan, J, Sivasangari, S. Symphysial fundal height (SFH) measurement in pregnancy for detecting abnormal fetal growth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012, Issue 7. Art. No.: CD008136. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008136.pub2.Google Scholar

Unterscheider, J, Geary, MP, Daly, S, McAuliffe, FM, Kennelly, MM, Dornan, J, et al. The customised fetal growth potential: A standard for Ireland. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2013 Jan;166(1):14–17.Google Scholar

Melamed, N, Ray, JG, Shah, PS, Berger, H, Kingdom, JC. Should we use customized fetal growth percentiles in urban Canada? J Obstet Gynaecol Canada 2014;36(2):164–70.Google Scholar

Van Wyk, L, Boers, KE, Van der Post, JAM, et al. Effects on (neuro)developmental and behavioral outcome at 2 years of age of induced labor compared with expectant management in intrauterine growth-restricted infants: Long-term outcomes of the DIGITAT trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;206:406.e1–7.Google ScholarPubMed