ArticleMedicine2019
Better prediction for FGR (fetal growth restriction) with the sFlt-1/PIGF ratio: A case-control study.
Article in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- The sFlt-1/PlGF Index as an Auxiliary Tool in the Prediction of Adverse Perinatal Outcomes in Late-Onset Fetal Growth Restriction: A Systematic Review.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Placental insufficiency and heavier placentas in sheep after suppressing CXCL12/CXCR4 signaling during implantation†.Biology of reproduction · 2023Article
- Maternal Serum Angiogenic Profile and Its Correlations with Ultrasound Parameters and Perinatal Results in Normotensive and Preeclamptic Pregnancies Complicated by Fetal Growth Restriction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Birth Weight < 3rd Percentile Prediction Using Additional Biochemical Markers-The Uric Acid Level and Angiogenesis Markers (sFlt-1, PlGF)-An Exploratory Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Identification of key genes in pathogenesis of placental insufficiency intrauterine growth restriction.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Article
- Prediction of Fetal Growth Restriction for Fetal Umbilical Arterial/Venous Blood Flow Index Evaluated by Ultrasonic Doppler under Intelligent Algorithm.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Article
- sFlt-1/PlGF Ratio in Prediction of Short-Term Neonatal Outcome of Small for Gestational Age Neonates.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Fetal Growth Restriction - Diagnostic Work-up, Management and Delivery.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2020Article
- Precision Diagnostics by Affinity-Mass Spectrometry: A Novel Approach for Fetal Growth Restriction Screening During Pregnancy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to check whether the sFlt-1/PIGF ratio, established as the biomarker for preeclampsia, reduces the false positive rate of late fetal growth restriction (FGR) detection by ultrasound biometry.This was a prospective case-control study, conducted at one regional maternity hospital in Romania. Study participants included singleton pregnancy women for whom the estimated fetal weight (EFW) at 28 to 35 weeks was < 10 percentiles and as controls, pregnant women with EFW >10 percentiles. All pregnancies were dated in the first trimester by crown-rump-length. We also recorded maternal characteristics, pregnancy and neonatal outcomes.The primary outcome measures were the relation between the sFlt-1/PIGF ratio and incidence of FGR. Secondary outcome was establishing a threshold for statistical significance of the marker and influence of other conditions (e.g., pre-eclampsia) on the accuracy of the marker in FGR prediction.Included in the study were 37 pregnant women and 37 controls.When we used ultrasound (US) biometry and maternal risk factors to estimate EFW <10 percentiles, the sensitivity was 44.4% with a specificity of 89% for an FPR (false positive result) of 10%. When we combined the US biometry and maternal risk factors with sFlt1/PIGF ratio, for a cut off of 38, the sensitivity was 84.21%, and the specificity was 84.31% for an FPR of 10%. The cut off value (36) did not change if we considered all cases of SGA, including those with associated preeclampsia or if we considered only FGR cases without associated preeclampsia.When associated with maternal factors and US biometry, the sFlt1/PIGF ratio enhanced the sensitivity for detecting late FGR.
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.