SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2011
Customised versus population-based growth charts as a screening tool for detecting small for gestational age infants in low-risk pregnant women.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Customised versus population-based growth charts as a screening tool for detecting small for gestational age infants in low-risk pregnant women.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- Galectin-9 Alleviates LPS-Induced Preeclampsia-Like Impairment in Rats via Switching Decidual Macrophage Polarization to M2 Subtype.Frontiers in immunology · 2018Article
- The effect of foetal growth restriction on the development of migraine and tension-type headache in adulthood. The HUNT Study.PloS one · 2017Article
- Gestational age specific stillbirth risk among Indigenous and non-Indigenous women in Queensland, Australia: a population based study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2016Article
- The use of angiogenic biomarkers in maternal blood to identify which SGA fetuses will require a preterm delivery and mothers who will develop pre-eclampsia.The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians · 2016Article
- Article
- Accuracy of ICD-9-CM coding to identify small for gestational age newborns.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2015Article
- Fetal growth and risk of stillbirth: a population-based case-control study.PLoS medicine · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFetal growth restriction is defined as failure to reach growth potential and considered one of the major complications of pregnancy. These infants are often, although not universally, small for gestational age (SGA). SGA is defined as a weight less than a specified percentile (usually the 10th percentile). Identification of SGA infants is important because these infants are at increased risk of perinatal morbidity and mortality. Screening for SGA is a challenge for all maternity care providers and current methods of clinical assessment fail to detect many infants that are SGA. Large observational studies suggest that customised growth charts may be better able to differentiate between constitutional and pathologic smallness. Customised charts adjust for physiological variables such as maternal weight and height, ethnicity and parity.
objectivesTo assess the benefits and harms of using population-based growth charts compared with customised growth charts as a screening tool for detection of fetal growth in pregnant women. SEARCH
methodsWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2011), reviewed published guidelines and searched the reference lists of review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, quasi-randomised or cluster randomised clinical trials comparing customised versus population-based growth charts used as a screening tool for detection of fetal growth in pregnant women. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion. MAIN
resultsNo randomised trials met the inclusion criteria. AUTHORS'
conclusionsThere is no randomised trial evidence currently available. Further randomised trials are required to accurately assess whether the improvement in detection shown is secondary to customised charts alone or an effect of the policy change. Future research in large trials is needed to investigate the benefits and harms (including perinatal mortality) of using customised growth charts in different settings and for both fundal height and ultrasound measurements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.