ArticlePloS one2016
Etiological Subgroups of Small-for-Gestational-Age: Differential Neurodevelopmental Outcomes.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and childhood neurodevelopment: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS medicine · 2025Pooled it
- The Association between Infant Birth Weight, Head Circumference, and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes.American journal of perinatology · 2024Trial
- Risk factors for developmental delays in small for gestational age children at age of 24-36 months.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2026Article
- Small for Gestational Age and Motor Development in Children: A Narrative Review of Risk Factors, Brain Mechanisms, and Early Interventions.Developmental neuroscience · 2025Review
- Associations Between Paternal Body Mass Index and Neurodevelopmental-Physical Outcomes in Small-for-Gestational-Age Children.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Feeding Method, Nicotine Exposure, and Growth during Infancy.Journal of pediatrics. Clinical practice · 2024Article
- The Legacy of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Impact on Infant and Maternal and Health from an Appalachian Academic Medical Center.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Prenatal tobacco smoke exposure and risk for cognitive delays in infants born very premature.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Etiological subgroups of term small-for-gestational-age and childhood health outcomes.Pediatric research · 2023Article
- The Impact of Selective Fetal Growth Restriction or Birth Weight Discordance on Long-Term Neurodevelopment in Monochorionic Twins: A Systematic Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIt remains unclear why substantial variations in neurodevelopmental outcomes exist within small-for-gestational-age (SGA) children. We prospectively compared 5-y neurodevelopmental outcomes across SGA etiological subgroups.
methodsChildren born SGA (N = 1050) from U.S. Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Birth Cohort (2001-2007) was divided into etiological subgroups by each of 7 well-established prenatal risk factors. We fit linear regression models to compare 5-y reading, math, gross motor and fine motor scores across SGA subgroups, adjusting for socio-demographic confounders.
resultsCompared to singleton SGA subgroup, multiple-birth SGA subgroup had lower mean reading (adjusted mean difference, -4.08 [95% confidence interval, -6.10, -2.06]) and math (-2.22 [-3.61, -0.84]) scores. These disadvantages in reading and math existed only among multiple-birth SGA subgroup without ovulation stimulation (reading, -4.50 [-6.64, -2.36]; math, -2.91 [-4.37, -1.44]), but not among those with ovulation stimulation (reading, -2.33 [-6.24, 1.57]; math 0.63 [-1.86, 3.12]). Compared to singleton SGA subgroup without maternal smoking and inadequate gestational weight gain, singleton SGA subgroup with co-occurrence of maternal smoking and inadequate gestational weight gain (GWG) had lower mean reading (-4.81 [-8.50, -1.12]) and math (-2.95 [-5.51, -0.38]) scores. These differences were not mediated by Apgar score.
conclusionsMultiple-birth SGA subgroups (vs. singleton SGA) or singleton SGA subgroup with co-occurrence of smoking and inadequate GWG (vs. singleton SGA subgroup without maternal smoking and inadequate gestational weight gain) have poorer cognitive development up to 5 y.
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.