ReviewCurrent epidemiology reports2018
Current Issues in the Development of Foetal Growth References and Standards.
Review in Current epidemiology reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The development of an alternative growth chart for estimated fetal weight in the absence of ultrasound: Application in Indonesia.PloS one · 2020Trial
- Effectiveness of routine third trimester ultrasonography to reduce adverse perinatal outcomes in low risk pregnancy (the IRIS study): nationwide, pragmatic, multicentre, stepped wedge cluster randomised trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2019Trial
- Development and validation of an ultrasound-based estimated fetal weight reference for Chinese twin pregnancy: a retrospective cohort study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Article
- Article
- Fetal growth standards for Chinese twin pregnancies.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewThis paper discusses the current issues in the development of foetal charts and is informed by a scoping review of studies constructing charts between 2012 and 2018. RECENT
findingsThe scoping review of 20 articles revealed that there is still a lack of consensus on how foetal charts should be constructed and whether an international chart that can be applied across populations is feasible. Many of these charts are in clinical use today and directly affect the identification of at risk newborns that require treatment and nutritional strategies. However, there is no agreement on important design features such as inclusion and exclusion criteria; sample size and agreement on definitions such as what constitutes a healthy population of pregnant women that can be used for constructing foetal standards. SUMMARY: This paper therefore reiterates some of these current issues and the scoping review showcases the heterogeneity in the studies developing foetal charts between 2012 and 2018. There is no consensus on these pertinent issues and hence if not resolved will lead to continued surge of foetal reference and standard charts which will only exacerbate the current problem of not being able to make direct comparisons of foetal size and growth across populations.
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.