Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31401613›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2019

Examining the predictive accuracy of metabolomics for small-for-gestational-age babies: a systematic review.

Debora Farias Batista Leite, Aude-Claire Morillon, Elias F Melo Júnior, Renato T Souza, Fergus P McCarthy, Ali Khashan, Philip Baker, Louise C Kenny, Jose Guilherme Cecatti

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. 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

9 authors.

Debora Farias Batista LeiteDepartment of Tocogynecology, Campinas' State University, Campinas, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-8839-3934
Aude-Claire MorillonIrish Centre for Fetal and Neonatal Translational Research (INFANT), University College Cork National University of Ireland, Cork, Ireland.
Elias F Melo JúniorClinics Hospital, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil.
Renato T SouzaObstetrics and Gynecology, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil.
Fergus P McCarthyDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, St Thomas Hospital, Cork, UK.
Ali KhashanDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Philip BakerCollege of Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Louise C KennyDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, University of Liverpool School of Life Sciences, Liverpool, UK.
Jose Guilherme CecattiObstetrics and Gynecology, University of Campinas, Campinas, Sao Paolo, Brazil cecatti@unicamp.br.ORCID 0000-0003-1285-8445

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTo date, there is no robust enough test to predict small-for-gestational-age (SGA) infants, who are at increased lifelong risk of morbidity and mortality.

objectiveTo determine the accuracy of metabolomics in predicting SGA babies and elucidate which metabolites are predictive of this condition. DATA SOURCES: Two independent researchers explored 11 electronic databases and grey literature in February 2018 and November 2018, covering publications from 1998 to 2018. Both researchers performed data extraction and quality assessment independently. A third researcher resolved discrepancies. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Cohort or nested case-control studies were included which investigated pregnant women and performed metabolomics analysis to evaluate SGA infants. The primary outcome was birth weight <10th centile-as a surrogate for fetal growth restriction-by population-based or customised charts. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS

methodsTwo independent researchers extracted data on study design, obstetric variables and sampling, metabolomics technique, chemical class of metabolites, and prediction accuracy measures. Authors were contacted to provide additional data when necessary.

resultsA total of 9181 references were retrieved. Of these, 273 were duplicate, 8760 were removed by title or abstract, and 133 were excluded by full-text content. Thus, 15 studies were included. Only two studies used the fifth centile as a cut-off, and most reports sampled second-trimester pregnant women. Liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry was the most common metabolomics approach. Untargeted studies in the second trimester provided the largest number of predictive metabolites, using maternal blood or hair. Fatty acids, phosphosphingolipids and amino acids were the most prevalent predictive chemical subclasses. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Significant heterogeneity of participant characteristics and methods employed among studies precluded a meta-analysis. Compounds related to lipid metabolism should be validated up to the second trimester in different settings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018089985.

Indexed as

Infant, Small for Gestational AgeMetabolomicsCase-Control StudiesCohort StudiesFemaleFetal Growth RetardationHumansInfant, NewbornPredictive Value of TestsPregnancyRisk Factorsfatty acidsfetal growth restrictiongas-chromatographyhomocysteinelipidsmass spectrometrymetabolomicspredictionsmall for gestational agevitamin d

Identifiers

PMID31401613
PMCPMC6701563

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.