Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33116930›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of women's health2020

What is the Impact of Abnormal Amniotic Fluid Volumes on Perinatal Outcomes in Normal Compared with At-Risk Pregnancies?

Pamela M Simmons, Julie R Whittington, Sarah M Estrada, Songthip T Ounpraseuth, Kelsey L Shnaekel, Kala B Slaton, Everett F Magann

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of women's health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Pamela M SimmonsUniversity of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, College of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Little Rock, AR, USA.
Julie R WhittingtonUniversity of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, College of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Little Rock, AR, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6947-2896
Sarah M EstradaMadigan Army Medical Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA, USA.
Songthip T OunpraseuthUniversity of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, College of Public Health, Department of Biostatistics, Little Rock, AR, USA.
Kelsey L ShnaekelUniversity of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, College of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Little Rock, AR, USA.
Kala B SlatonUniversity of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, College of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Little Rock, AR, USA.
Everett F MagannUniversity of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, College of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Little Rock, AR, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6823-7635
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences · USMadigan Army Medical Center · USWomen's Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAssessing amniotic fluid volume is an integral part of obstetric practice. Data are sparse on at-risk pregnancy and amniotic fluid volumes. The aim of our study was to determine if there is a difference in perinatal outcomes based on complications of pregnancy and amniotic fluid volumes. We hypothesized that at-risk pregnancies with abnormal amniotic fluid volumes would have worse perinatal outcomes than normal pregnancies with abnormal amniotic fluid volumes. STUDY

designThis retrospective cohort study evaluated both normal and at-risk singleton pregnancies with intact membranes on admission for delivery. Amniotic fluid volumes were estimated using both the amniotic fluid index (AFI) and single deepest pocket (SDP) techniques. All sonograms were performed by trained ultrasound technicians or obstetrician/gynecologists. We placed 3365 women into 6 separate groups (at-risk versus normal, then further stratified by oligohydramnios by SDP, normal fluid, or polyhydramnios by AFI).

resultsAt-risk pregnancies with normal fluid and at-risk pregnancies with polyhydramnios have significantly increased risk of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission [OR 2.06 (95% CI 1.63,2.60), OR 2.74 (95% CI 1.54, 4.87)]. Birthweight is significantly higher in at-risk and normal pregnancies with polyhydramnios than those with normal pregnancies and normal fluid (p<0.0001). Birthweight is significantly lower in at-risk pregnancies with oligohydramnios (p<0.0001). There were no significant differences in need for amnioinfusion in labor, variables or lates influencing delivery, meconium staining, or umbilical artery pH <7.1.

conclusionOur study attempted to further define risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes by defining the pregnancy as normal or at-risk and amniotic fluid volumes. Contrary to our hypothesis, we did not find an increased risk of many of the adverse perinatal outcomes we studied amongst at-risk pregnancies with abnormal fluid. There was an increased risk of NICU admission associated with polyhydramnios in normal and at-risk pregnancies.

Indexed as

amniotic fluid volumeat-risk pregnancyneonatal outcomesobstetric ultrasound

Identifiers

PMID33116930
PMCPMC7555350
OpenAlexW3092423231

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.