Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35041244›Full record

ArticleUltrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology2022

Fetal weight projection model to define growth velocity and validation against pregnancy outcome in a cohort of serially scanned pregnancies.

O Hugh, J Gardosi

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

O HughPerinatal Institute, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2106-214X
J GardosiPerinatal Institute, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3230-1292
Perinatal Institute · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveFetal growth assessment is central to good antenatal care, yet there is a lack of definition of normal and abnormal fetal growth rate which can identify pregnancies at risk of adverse outcome. The aim of this study was to develop and test a model for defining normal limits of growth velocity which are specific to the fetal weight measurement interval.

methodsThe cohort consisted of 102 138 singleton pregnancies which underwent at least two third-trimester measurements of ultrasound estimated fetal weight (EFW), usually carried out because routine early-pregnancy risk assessment had indicated an increased risk of fetal growth restriction. We projected the EFW from the first of each consecutive measurement pair along its own centile rank to the gestational age of the second scan. Normal growth was defined as the second EFW being within a weight range based on limits derived by partial receiver-operating-characteristics-curve (pROC) analyses for small-for-gestational-age (SGA; < 10

resultsThe optimal cut-off limits for normal growth rate between consecutive scans varied according to the length of the measurement interval, with an average of -8.0% for slow growth and + 9.3% for accelerated growth at a fixed FPR of 10%. Slow growth between random consecutive scan pairs was associated significantly with all predefined outcome measures including stillbirth (RR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.84-2.53) and neonatal death (RR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.60-3.13). Accelerated growth was associated with LGA at birth (RR, 2.15; 95% CI, 2.10-2.20), while normal growth was protective of all adverse outcome measures. Slow growth between the last two scans (which were performed at a median gestational age of 33 + 1 to 36 + 4 weeks) and SGA at the last scan were each predictors of stillbirth, and stillbirth risk was highest when both were present (RR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.67-4.20). However, 66.2% of pregnancies with slow growth were not SGA at the last scan and these cases also had an increased risk of stillbirth (RR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.40-3.05).

conclusionFetal growth velocity defined by projected, measurement-interval specific fetal weight limits is associated independently with perinatal outcome and should be used for antenatal surveillance in addition to assessment by fetal size. © 2022 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Indexed as

Fetal WeightPerinatal DeathFemaleFetal Growth RetardationGestational AgeHumansInfantInfant, NewbornInfant, Small for Gestational AgePredictive Value of TestsPregnancyPregnancy OutcomeStillbirthUltrasonography, Prenatalbirth weightestimated fetal weightfetal growth velocitylarge-for-gestational agesmall-for-gestational agestillbirthultrasound scan

Identifiers

PMID35041244
PMCPMC9328382
OpenAlexW4205775312

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.