Trial reportPloS one2020
The development of an alternative growth chart for estimated fetal weight in the absence of ultrasound: Application in Indonesia.
Trial report in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A fetal growth chart is a vital tool for assessing fetal risk during pregnancy. Since fetal weight cannot be directly measured, its reliable estimation at different stages of pregnancy has become an essential issue in obstetrics and gynecology and one of the critical elements in developing a fetal growth chart for estimated fetal weight. In Indonesia, however, a reliable model and data for fetal weight estimation remain challenging, and this causes the absence of a standard fetal growth chart in antenatal care practices. This study has reviewed and evaluated the efficacy of the prediction models used to develop the most prominent growth charts for estimated fetal weight. The study also has discussed the potential challenges when such surveillance tools are utilized in low resource settings. The study, then, has proposed an alternative model based only on maternal fundal height to estimate fetal weight. Finally, the study has developed an alternative growth chart and assessed its capability in detecting abnormal patterns of fetal growth during pregnancy. Prospective data from twenty selected primary health centers in South Kalimantan, Indonesia, were used for the proposed model validation, the comparison task, and the alternative growth chart development using both descriptive and inferential statistics. Results show that limited access to individual fetal biometric characteristics and low-quality data on personal maternal and neonatal characteristics make the existing fetal growth charts less applicable in the local setting. The proposed model based only on maternal fundal height has a comparable ability in predicting fetal weight with less error than the existing models. The results have shown that the developed chart based on the proposed model can effectively detect signs of abnormality, between 20 and 41 weeks, among low birth weight babies in the absence of ultrasound. Consequently, the developed chart would improve the quality of fetal risk assessment during pregnancy and reduce the risk of adverse neonatal outcomes.
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.