Authors' reply re: Cerebroplacental ratio in predicting adverse perinatal outcome: a meta-analysis of individual participant data.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Maternal Low Volume Circulation Relates to Normotensive and Preeclamptic Fetal Growth Restriction.Frontiers in medicine · 2022
   Review
2. 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
3. Fetal Superior Vena Cava Blood Flow and Its Fraction of Cardiac Output: A Longitudinal Ultrasound Study in the Second Half of Pregnancy.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2021
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Re: Cerebroplacental ratio in predicting adverse perinatal outcome: a meta-analysis of individual participant data.2020

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as