ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2022
Comparison of alternative gestational age assessment methods in a low resource setting: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2022. 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing the diagnostic accuracy of postnatal clinical scoring methods and foot length measurement for estimating gestational age and birthweight of newborns in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ paediatrics open · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Article
- Problems with gestational age estimation by last menstrual period and ultrasound among late antenatal care attendant women in a low-resource setting in Africa, Sudan.Journal of ultrasound · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate gestational age (GA) determination allows correct management of high-risk, complicated or post-date pregnancies and prevention or anticipation of prematurity related complications. Ultrasound measurement in the first trimester is the gold standard for GA determination. In low- and middle-income countries elevated costs, lack of skills and poor maternal access to health service limit the availability of prenatal ultrasonography, making it necessary to use alternative methods. This study compared three methods of GA determination: Last Normal Menstrual Period recall (LNMP), New Ballard Score (NBS) and New Ballard Score corrected for Birth Weight (NBS + BW) with the locally available standard (Ultrasound measurement in the third trimester) in a low-resource setting (Tosamaganga Council Designated Hospital, Iringa, Tanzania).
methodsAll data were retrospectively collected from hospital charts. Comparisons were performed using Bland Altman method.
resultsThe analysis included 70 mother-newborn pairs. Median gestational age was 38 weeks (IQR 37-39) according to US. The mean difference between LNMP vs. US was 2.1 weeks (95% agreement limits - 3.5 to 7.7 weeks); NBS vs. US was 0.2 weeks (95% agreement limits - 3.7 to 4.1 weeks); NBS + BW vs. US was 1.2 weeks (95% agreement limits - 1.8 to 4.2 weeks).
conclusionsIn our setting, NBS + BW was the least biased method for GA determination as compared with the locally available standard. However, wide agreement bands suggested low accuracy for all three alternative methods. New evidence in the use of second/third trimester ultrasound suggests concentrating efforts and resources in further validating and implementing the use of late pregnancy biometry for gestational age dating in low and middle-income countries.
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.