Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24830409›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2014

Customised versus population-based growth charts as a screening tool for detecting small for gestational age infants in low-risk pregnant women.

Angela E Carberry, Adrienne Gordon, Diana M Bond, Jon Hyett, Camille H Raynes-Greenow, Heather E Jeffery

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
20.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Hepato - Cephalic Index as a Predictor of Intrauterine Growth Restriction.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2016
    Article
  13. Elevated Liver Enzymes in Cases of Preeclampsia and Intrauterine Growth Restriction.Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina) · 2016
    Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Angela E CarberrySydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Camperdown, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2050.
Adrienne Gordon
Diana M Bond
Jon Hyett
Camille H Raynes-Greenow
Heather E Jeffery
University of Sydney · AURoyal Prince Alfred Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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 who 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 (12 March 2014), 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

Growth ChartsInfant, Small for Gestational AgeFemaleFetal Growth RetardationHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID24830409
PMCPMC7175785
OpenAlexW2149034662

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.