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.

METHODS: This study measured 2-PD thresholds for the dominant and nondominant index finger and dominant and nondominant forearm in groups of students in a 4-year chiropractic program at the International Medical University in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Measurements were made using digital calipers mounted on a modified weighing scale. Group comparisons were made among students for each year of the program (years 1, 2, 3, and 4). Analysis of the 2-PD threshold for differences among the year groups was performed with analysis of variance.

RESULTS: The mean 2-PD threshold of the index finger was higher in the students who were in the higher year groups. Dominant-hand mean values for year 1 were 2.93 ± 0.04 mm and 1.69 ± 0.02 mm in year 4. There were significant differences at finger sites (P < .05) among all year groups compared with year 1. There were no significant differences measured at the dominant forearm between any year groups (P = .08). The nondominant fingers of the year groups 1, 2, and 4 showed better 2-PD compared with the dominant finger. There was a significant difference (P = .005) between the nondominant (1.93 ± 1.15) and dominant (2.27 ± 1.14) fingers when all groups were combined (n = 104).