SynthesisMedicine2016
Ultrasound as a primary screening tool for detecting low birthweight newborns: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of logistic regression with machine learning methods for the prediction of fetal growth abnormalities: a retrospective cohort study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs low birthweight (i.e., birthweight < 2500 g) is a major determinant of neonatal mortality and morbidity, the pre-delivery detection of low birthweight is clinically advantageous. This study was performed to determine whether ultrasound is suitable for use in primary screening to detect low birthweight newborns.
methodsThe primary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios of ultrasound detection of low birthweight newborns. Ten databases, including PubMed, were searched. All English language studies that provided true- and false-positive and true- and false-negative results regarding the pre-delivery ultrasound detection of low birthweight newborns were eligible for inclusion in the analysis. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. Bivariate diagnostic meta-analysis was performed and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed.
resultsStudies of relatively good quality were included in the analysis to evaluate crown-rump length (n = 12); femur length (n = 5); formulas of Campbell, Hadlock, and Shepard (n = 9); and uterine artery blood flow (n = 7). All showed low sensitivity (=0.24-0.58) regardless of specificity (=0.60-0.96). The formulas of Campbell, Hadlock, and Shepard were usable for a confirmation strategy only (positive and negative likelihood ratios = 14.8 and 0.44, respectively), but crown-rump or femur length, and uterine artery blood flow were not usable for an exclusion or confirmation strategy (positive and negative likelihood ratios = 1.4-2.8 and 0.71-0.85, respectively).
conclusionsPrimary screening does not have to confirm low birthweight, but should almost always categorize low birthweight as a positive result and exclude normal birthweight. Therefore, ultrasound is not suitable as a primary screening tool to detect low birthweight newborns.
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.