Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32663227›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Agreement between antenatal gestational age by ultrasound and clinical records at birth: A prospective cohort in the Brazilian Amazon.

Bárbara Hatzlhoffer Lourenço, Daniel Leal Lima, Edwin Vivanco, Rachelle de Brito Fernandes, Mirian Duarte, Paulo Augusto Ribeiro Neves, Marcia Caldas de Castro, Marly Augusto Cardoso, MINA-Brazil Study Group

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
4.3field-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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Bárbara Hatzlhoffer LourençoDepartment of Nutrition, School of Public Health, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-2006-674X
Daniel Leal LimaJuruá Women's and Children's Hospital, Cruzeiro do Sul, Brazil.
Edwin VivancoJuruá Women's and Children's Hospital, Cruzeiro do Sul, Brazil.
Rachelle de Brito FernandesMunicipal Health Secretariat of Cruzeiro do Sul, Cruzeiro do Sul, Brazil.
Mirian DuartePrivate Practice in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, São Paulo, Brazil.
Paulo Augusto Ribeiro NevesDepartment of Nutrition, School of Public Health, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-1200-4725
Marcia Caldas de CastroDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-4606-2795
Marly Augusto CardosoDepartment of Nutrition, School of Public Health, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
MINA-Brazil Study Group
Universidade de São Paulo · BRHarvard Global Health Institute · USUniversidade Cruzeiro do Sul · BRUniversidade Federal de Pelotas · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to assess agreement between antenatal estimates of gestational age by ultrasound and clinical records at birth in the Brazilian Amazon. Ultrasound examinations were scheduled during the second trimester for 578 pregnant women prospectively screened at primary health care units, following a standardized protocol for image quality control. A multistage algorithm was used to assess the best estimate of gestational age during the antenatal period, considering reliability of last menstrual period (LMP) and acceptable differences in relation to ultrasound estimates derived from fetal biparietal diameter and femur length. Agreement of antenatal estimates of gestational age confirmed by ultrasound and clinical records at birth was analyzed with Bland-Altman plots and kappa coefficients (preterm and postterm births). Overall, ultrasound examinations presented high quality (>90% of satisfactory images), and were adopted as the best estimate of gestational age among 83.4% of pregnant women, confirming reliable LMP in the remaining proportion. On average, difference in gestational age between antenatal estimates and clinical records was 0.43 week (95% CI: 0.32, 0.53). Classification of preterm births had a good agreement (kappa: 0.82, p<0.001), but a poor performance was observed for postterm births (kappa: -0.06, p = 0.92). Higher differences in gestational age were noted for participants with >11 years of education and cases of caesarean deliveries. In conclusion, high-quality ultrasound images from the second trimester of pregnancy based the assessment of gestational age, while reliability of LMP was limited. Information from clinical records at birth presented an acceptable agreement on average and for classification of preterm births, which is relevant for properly interpreting perinatal outcomes. Discrepancies in caesarean deliveries may warrant further investigation.

Indexed as

Birth CertificatesGestational AgeUltrasonography, PrenatalAdultBrazilCohort StudiesHumansMaleProspective StudiesRegistriesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID32663227
PMCPMC7360033
OpenAlexW3042300876

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.