Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34279466›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021

Prediction of Late-Onset Small for Gestational Age and Fetal Growth Restriction by Fetal Biometry at 35 Weeks and Impact of Ultrasound-Delivery Interval: Comparison of Six Fetal Growth Standards.

Ricardo Savirón-Cornudella, Luis Mariano Esteban, Rocío Aznar-Gimeno, Peña Dieste-Pérez, Faustino R Pérez-López, Jose Manuel Campillos, Berta Castán-Larraz, Gerardo Sanz, Mauricio Tajada-Duaso

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 5 institutions in 1 country.

Ricardo Savirón-CornudellaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos and Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria San Carlos (IdISSC), Calle del Prof Martín Lagos s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-9585-0187
Luis Mariano EstebanDepartment of Applied Mathematics, Escuela Universitaria Politécnica de La Almunia, Universidad de Zaragoza, Calle Mayor 5, 50100 La Almunia de Doña Godina, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-3007-302X
Rocío Aznar-GimenoDepartment of Big Data and Cognitive Systems, Instituto Tecnológico de Aragon, ITAINNOVA, María de Luna 7-8, 50018 Zaragoza, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-1415-146X
Peña Dieste-PérezDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Health Research Institute (IISA), Miguel Servet University Hospital and Aragon, Isabel La Católica 3, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain.
Faustino R Pérez-LópezDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine and Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Aragón, University of Zaragoza, Domingo Miral s/n, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-2801-416X
Jose Manuel CampillosDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Health Research Institute (IISA), Miguel Servet University Hospital and Aragon, Isabel La Católica 3, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-0306-8858
Berta Castán-LarrazDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, San Pedro Hospital, Calle Piqueras 98, 26006 Logroño, Spain.
Gerardo SanzDepartment of Statistical Methods and Institute for Biocomputation and Physics of Complex Systems-BIFI, University of Zaragoza, Calle Pedro Cerbuna 12, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-6474-2252
Mauricio Tajada-DuasoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Miguel Servet University Hospital, Isabel La Católica 3, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain.
Universidad de Zaragoza · ESHospital San Pedro · ESHospital Universitario Miguel Servet · ESInstituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos · ESInstituto Tecnológico de Aragón · ES

Funding

Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad, Gobierno de España MTM2017-83812-P
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Small-for-gestational-age (SGA) infants have been associated with increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes (APOs). In this work, we assess the predictive ability of the ultrasound-estimated percentile weight (EPW) at 35 weeks of gestational age to predict late-onset SGA and APOs, according to six growth standards, and whether the ultrasound-delivery interval influences the detection rate. To this purpose, we analyze a retrospective cohort study of 9585 singleton pregnancies. EPWs at 35 weeks were calculated to the customized Miguel Servet University Hospital (MSUH) and Figueras standards and the non-customized MSUH, Fetal Medicine Foundation (FMF), INTERGROWTH-21st, and WHO standards. As results of our analysis, for a 10% false positive rate, the detection rates for SGA ranged between 48.9% with the customized Figueras standard (AUC 0.82) and 60.8% with the non-customized FMF standard (AUC 0.87). Detection rates to predict SGA by ultrasound-delivery interval (1-6 weeks) show higher detection rates as intervals decrease. APOs detection rates ranged from 27.0% with FMF to 7.9% with the Figueras standard. In conclusion, the ability of EPW to predict SGA at 35 weeks is good for all standards, and slightly better for non-customized standards. The APO detection rate is significantly greater for non-customized standards.

Indexed as

adverse perinatal outcomesbirth weightestimated fetal weightestimated percentile weightfetal growth standardsmall for gestational ageultrasound

Identifiers

PMID34279466
PMCPMC8269193
OpenAlexW3182785607

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.