Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29554145›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Determining gestational age and preterm birth in rural Guatemala: A comparison of methods.

John R Weinstein, Lisa M Thompson, Anaité Díaz Artiga, Joe P Bryan, William E Arriaga, Saad B Omer, John P McCracken

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

John R WeinsteinSchool of Nursing, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-1349-5404
Lisa M ThompsonSchool of Nursing, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Anaité Díaz ArtigaCentro de Estudios en Salud, Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Guatemala City, Guatemala.
Joe P BryanCentral American Regional Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Guatemala City, Guatemala.
William E ArriagaMinisterio de Salud Pública y Asistencia Social, Quetzaltenango, Guatemala.
Saad B OmerRollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
John P McCrackenCentro de Estudios en Salud, Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Guatemala City, Guatemala.
Universidad del Valle de Guatemala · GTUniversity of California, San Francisco · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USEmory University · US

Funding

ACL HHS U01GH001003CDC HHS 1U01GH001003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPreterm birth is the leading cause of death among children <5 years of age. Accurate determination of prematurity is necessary to provide appropriate neonatal care and guide preventive measures. To estimate the most accurate method to identify infants at risk for adverse outcomes, we assessed the validity of two widely available methods-last menstrual period (LMP) and the New Ballard (NB) neonatal assessment-against ultrasound in determining gestational age and preterm birth in highland Guatemala.

methodsPregnant women (n = 188) were recruited with a gestational age <20 weeks and followed until delivery. Ultrasound was performed by trained physicians and LMP was collected during recruitment. NB was performed on infants within 96 hours of birth by trained study nurses. LMP and NB accuracy at determining gestational age and identifying prematurity was assessed by comparing them to ultrasound.

resultsBy ultrasound, infant mean gestational age at birth was 38.3 weeks (SD = 1.6) with 16% born at less than 37 gestation. LMP was more accurate than NB (mean difference of +0.13 weeks for LMP and +0.61 weeks for NB). However, LMP and NB estimates had low agreement with ultrasound-determined gestational age (Lin's concordance<0.48 for both methods) and preterm birth (κ<0.29 for both methods). By LMP, 18% were judged premature compared with 6% by NB. LMP underestimated gestational age among women presenting later to prenatal care (0.18 weeks for each additional week). Gestational age for preterm infants was overestimated by nearly one week using LMP and nearly two weeks using NB. New Ballard neuromuscular measurements were more predictive of preterm birth than those measuring physical criteria.

conclusionIn an indigenous population in highland Guatemala, LMP overestimated prematurity by 2% and NB underestimated prematurity by 10% compared with ultrasound estimates. New, simple and accurate methods are needed to identify preterm birth in resource-limited settings worldwide.

Indexed as

Gestational AgeAdolescentAdultCohort StudiesFemaleGuatemalaHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedInfant, NewbornPregnancyPremature BirthRural PopulationUltrasonographyYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID29554145
PMCPMC5858755
OpenAlexW2792046915

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.