***TASK***
the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***INPUT***
the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature

***OUTPUT***
the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***DOCUMENTATION***

***EXAMPLES***

Input: 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. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether SFH measurement is effective in detecting IUGR. We cannot therefore recommended any change of current practice. Further trials are needed.
Output:

We wanted to know which of these two methods is more likely to detect poor growth. Ultrasound assessment can also be used to detect growth restriction but this is costly and not always available, and there are concerns about its unnecessary use. We found only one randomised trial (involving 1639 women at 20 weeks’ gestation and above) comparing repeated measures of SFH with abdominal palpation. The trial found no difference between the two approaches in detecting poor growth. With such limited evidence, it is still not known whether one method is more effective than the other, and how these methods compare with ultrasound measurement. The main findings from this review were assessed for quality using software called GRADEpro. The overall evidence was of low/very low quality.