ArticlePloS one2022
Assessing fetal growth in Africa: Application of the international WHO and INTERGROWTH-21st standards in a Beninese pregnancy cohort.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFetal growth restriction is a major complication of pregnancy and is associated with stillbirth, infant death and child morbidity. Ultrasound monitoring of pregnancy is becoming more common in Africa for fetal growth monitoring in clinical care and research, but many countries have no national growth charts. We evaluated the new international fetal growth standards from INTERGROWTH-21st and WHO in a cohort from southern Benin.
methodsRepeated ultrasound and clinical data were collected in women from the preconceptional RECIPAL cohort (241 women with singleton pregnancies, 964 ultrasounds). We modelled fetal biometric parameters including abdominal circumference (AC) and estimated fetal weight (EFW) and compared centiles to INTERGROWTH-21st and WHO standards, using the Bland and Altman method to assess agreement. For EFW, we used INTERGROWTH-21st standards based on their EFW formula (IG21st) as well as a recent update using Hadlock's EFW formula (IG21hl). Proportions of fetuses with measurements under the 10th percentile were compared.
resultsMaternal malaria and anaemia prevalence was 43% and 69% respectively and 11% of women were primigravid. Overall, the centiles in the RECIPAL cohort were higher than that of INTERGROWTH-21st and closer to that of WHO. Consequently, the proportion of fetuses under 10th percentile thresholds was systematically lower when applying IG21st compared to WHO standards. At 27-31 weeks and 33-38 weeks, respectively, 7.4% and 5.6% of fetuses had EFW <10th percentile using IG21hl standards versus 10.7% and 11.6% using WHO standards.
conclusionDespite high anemia and malaria prevalence in the cohort, IG21st and WHO standards did not identify higher than expected proportions of fetuses under the 10th percentiles of ultrasound parameters or EFW. The proportions of fetuses under the 10th percentile threshold for IG21st charts were particularly low, raising questions about its use to identify growth-restricted fetuses in Africa.
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.