Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27802270›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Single and Serial Fetal Biometry to Detect Preterm and Term Small- and Large-for-Gestational-Age Neonates: A Longitudinal Cohort Study.

Adi L Tarca, Edgar Hernandez-Andrade, Hyunyoung Ahn, Maynor Garcia, Zhonghui Xu, Steven J Korzeniewski, Homam Saker, Tinnakorn Chaiworapongsa, Sonia S Hassan, Lami Yeo and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Fetal weight projection model to define growth velocity and validation against pregnancy outcome in a cohort of serially scanned pregnancies.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2022
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Reduced fetal growth velocity precedes antepartum fetal death.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2021
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Adi L TarcaPerinatology Research Branch, NICHD/NIH/DHHS, Bethesda, MD, and Detroit, Michigan, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1712-7588
Edgar Hernandez-AndradePerinatology Research Branch, NICHD/NIH/DHHS, Bethesda, MD, and Detroit, Michigan, United States of America.
Hyunyoung AhnPerinatology Research Branch, NICHD/NIH/DHHS, Bethesda, MD, and Detroit, Michigan, United States of America.
Maynor GarciaPerinatology Research Branch, NICHD/NIH/DHHS, Bethesda, MD, and Detroit, Michigan, United States of America.
Zhonghui XuPerinatology Research Branch, NICHD/NIH/DHHS, Bethesda, MD, and Detroit, Michigan, United States of America.
Steven J KorzeniewskiPerinatology Research Branch, NICHD/NIH/DHHS, Bethesda, MD, and Detroit, Michigan, United States of America.
Homam SakerPerinatology Research Branch, NICHD/NIH/DHHS, Bethesda, MD, and Detroit, Michigan, United States of America.
Tinnakorn ChaiworapongsaPerinatology Research Branch, NICHD/NIH/DHHS, Bethesda, MD, and Detroit, Michigan, United States of America.
Sonia S HassanPerinatology Research Branch, NICHD/NIH/DHHS, Bethesda, MD, and Detroit, Michigan, United States of America.
Lami YeoPerinatology Research Branch, NICHD/NIH/DHHS, Bethesda, MD, and Detroit, Michigan, United States of America.
Roberto RomeroPerinatology Research Branch, NICHD/NIH/DHHS, Bethesda, MD, and Detroit, Michigan, United States of America.

Funding

Prenatal Diagnosis Of Congenital AnomaliesZIAHD002401 · NICHD · EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT · PI ROMERO, ROBERTO · 2009 to 2025
$81.1M
NICHD NIH HHS HHSN275201300006C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the value of single and serial fetal biometry for the prediction of small- (SGA) and large-for-gestational-age (LGA) neonates delivered preterm or at term.

methodsA cohort study of 3,971 women with singleton pregnancies was conducted from the first trimester until delivery with 3,440 pregnancies (17,334 scans) meeting the following inclusion criteria: 1) delivery of a live neonate after 33 gestational weeks and 2) two or more ultrasound examinations with fetal biometry parameters obtained at ≤36 weeks. Primary outcomes were SGA (<5th centile) and LGA (>95th centile) at birth based on INTERGROWTH-21st gender-specific standards. Fetus-specific estimated fetal weight (EFW) trajectories were calculated by linear mixed-effects models using data up to a fixed gestational age (GA) cutoff (28, 32, or 36 weeks) for fetuses having two or more measurements before the GA cutoff and not already delivered. A screen test positive for single biometry was based on Z-scores of EFW at the last scan before each GA cut-off so that the false positive rate (FPR) was 10%. Similarly, a screen test positive for the longitudinal analysis was based on the projected (extrapolated) EFW at 40 weeks from all available measurements before each cutoff for each fetus.

resultsFetal abdominal and head circumference measurements, as well as birth weights in the Detroit population, matched well to the INTERGROWTH-21st standards, yet this was not the case for biparietal diameter (BPD) and femur length (FL) (up to 9% and 10% discrepancy for mean and confidence intervals, respectively), mainly due to differences in the measurement technique. Single biometry based on EFW at the last scan at ≤32 weeks (GA IQR: 27.4-30.9 weeks) had a sensitivity of 50% and 53% (FPR = 10%) to detect preterm and term SGA and LGA neonates, respectively (AUC of 82% both). For the detection of LGA using data up to 32- and 36-week cutoffs, single biometry analysis had higher sensitivity than longitudinal analysis (52% vs 46% and 62% vs 52%, respectively; both p<0.05). Restricting the analysis to subjects with the last observation taken within two weeks from the cutoff, the sensitivity for detection of LGA, but not SGA, increased to 65% and 72% for single biometry at the 32- and 36-week cutoffs, respectively. SGA screening performance was higher for preterm (<37 weeks) than for term cases (73% vs 46% sensitivity; p<0.05) for single biometry at ≤32 weeks.

conclusionsWhen growth abnormalities are defined based on birth weight, growth velocity (captured in the longitudinal analysis) does not provide additional information when compared to the last measurement for predicting SGA and LGA neonates, with both approaches detecting one-half of the neonates (FPR = 10%) from data collected at ≤32 weeks. Unlike for SGA, LGA detection can be improved if ultrasound scans are scheduled as close as possible to the gestational-age cutoff when a decision regarding the clinical management of the patient needs to be made. Screening performance for SGA is higher for neonates that will be delivered preterm.

Indexed as

AdultBiometryBirth WeightCohort StudiesFemaleFetal Growth RetardationFetal WeightGestational AgeHumansInfant, NewbornInfant, Small for Gestational AgeLongitudinal StudiesPredictive Value of TestsPregnancyPregnancy Trimester, ThirdRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID27802270
PMCPMC5089737

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.