Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35869463›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2022

Comparison of alternative gestational age assessment methods in a low resource setting: a retrospective study.

Andrea Pietravalle, Silvia Spolverato, Luca Brasili, Francesco Cavallin, Valentina Gabrielli, Gaetano Azzimonti, Donald Micah Maziku, Dionis Erasto Leluko, Daniele Trevisanuto, Giovanni Putoto

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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, 4 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Andrea PietravalleDoctors with Africa CUAMM, Padua, Italy. a.pietravalle@cuamm.org.
Silvia SpolveratoDoctors with Africa CUAMM, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Luca BrasiliDoctors with Africa CUAMM, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Francesco CavallinIndependent statistician, Solagna, Italy.
Valentina GabrielliDoctors with Africa CUAMM, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Gaetano AzzimontiDoctors with Africa CUAMM, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Donald Micah MazikuSt. John of the Cross, Tosamaganga Council Designated Hospital, Iringa, Tanzania.
Dionis Erasto LelukoSt. John of the Cross, Tosamaganga Council Designated Hospital, Iringa, Tanzania.
Daniele TrevisanutoDepartment of Woman's and Child's Health, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Giovanni PutotoDoctors with Africa CUAMM, Padua, Italy.
Doctors with Africa Cuamm · ITNational Institute of Statistics · ITUniversity of Padua · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Infant, Low Birth WeightUltrasonography, PrenatalFemaleGestational AgeHumansInfantInfant, NewbornPregnancyRetrospective StudiesTanzaniaGestational ageLast menstrual periodNeonatal examinationUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID35869463
PMCPMC9308278
OpenAlexW4286717069

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.