Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31584941›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2019

Identification of the optimal growth charts for use in a preterm population: An Australian state-wide retrospective cohort study.

Natasha L Pritchard, Richard J Hiscock, Elizabeth Lockie, Michael Permezel, Monica F G McGauren, Amber L Kennedy, Brittany Green, Susan P Walker, Anthea C Lindquist

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Customized birthweight standard for a Polish population.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. FIGO (international Federation of Gynecology and obstetrics) initiative on fetal growth: best practice advice for screening, diagnosis, and management of fetal growth restriction.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Natasha L PritchardDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7388-2193
Richard J HiscockDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5375-041X
Elizabeth LockieDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5223-5958
Michael PermezelDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Monica F G McGaurenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Mercy Hospital for Women, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.
Amber L KennedyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7663-8102
Brittany GreenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5680-6853
Susan P WalkerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Anthea C LindquistDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8662-5188
The University of Melbourne · AUMercy Hospital for Women · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPreterm infants are a group at high risk of having experienced placental insufficiency. It is unclear which growth charts perform best in identifying infants at increased risk of stillbirth and other adverse perinatal outcomes. We compared 2 birthweight charts (population centiles and INTERGROWTH-21st birthweight centiles) and 3 fetal growth charts (INTERGROWTH-21st fetal growth charts, World Health Organization fetal growth charts, and Gestation Related Optimal Weight [GROW] customised growth charts) to identify which chart performed best in identifying infants at increased risk of adverse perinatal outcome in a preterm population. METHODS AND

findingsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of all preterm infants born at 24.0 to 36.9 weeks gestation in Victoria, Australia, from 2005 to 2015 (28,968 records available for analysis). All above growth charts were applied to the population. Proportions classified as <5th centile and <10th centile by each chart were compared, as were proportions of stillborn infants considered small for gestational age (SGA, <10th centile) by each chart. We then compared the relative performance of non-overlapping SGA cohorts by each chart to our low-risk reference population (infants born appropriate size for gestational age [>10th and <90th centile] by all intrauterine charts [AGAall]) for the following perinatal outcomes: stillbirth, perinatal mortality (stillbirth or neonatal death), Apgar <4 or <7 at 5 minutes, neonatal intensive care unit admissions, suspicion of poor fetal growth leading to expedited delivery, and cesarean section. All intrauterine charts classified a greater proportion of infants as <5th or <10th centile than birthweight charts. The magnitude of the difference between birthweight and fetal charts was greater at more preterm gestations. Of the fetal charts, GROW customised charts classified the greatest number of infants as SGA (22.3%) and the greatest number of stillborn infants as SGA (57%). INTERGROWTH classified almost no additional infants as SGA that were not already considered SGA on GROW or WHO charts; however, those infants classified as SGA by INTERGROWTH had the greatest risk of both stillbirth and total perinatal mortality. GROW customised charts classified a larger proportion of infants as SGA, and these infants were still at increased risk of mortality and adverse perinatal outcomes compared to the AGAall population. Consistent with similar studies in this field, our study was limited in comparing growth charts by the degree of overlap, with many infants classified as SGA by multiple charts. We attempted to overcome this by examining and comparing sub-populations classified as SGA by only 1 growth chart.

conclusionsIn this study, fetal charts classified greater proportions of preterm and stillborn infants as SGA, which more accurately reflected true fetal growth restriction. Of the intrauterine charts, INTERGROWTH classified the smallest number of preterm infants as SGA, although it identified a particularly high-risk cohort, and GROW customised charts classified the greatest number at increased risk of perinatal mortality.

Indexed as

Growth ChartsAdultBirth WeightFemaleFetal DevelopmentHumansInfant, NewbornInfant, PrematureInfant, Small for Gestational AgeMaternal AgeNeonatologyObstetricsPregnancyPregnancy OutcomePremature BirthRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID31584941
PMCPMC6777749
OpenAlexW2978045219

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.