ArticlePloS one2022
Adjusting growth standards for fetal sex improves correlation of small babies with stillbirth and adverse perinatal outcomes: A state-wide population study.
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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesSex impacts birthweight, with male babies heavier on average. Birthweight charts are thus sex specific, but ultrasound fetal weights are often reported by sex neutral standards. We aimed to identify what proportion of infants would be re-classified as SGA if sex-specific charts were used, and if this had a measurable impact on perinatal outcomes.
methodsRetrospective cohort study including all infants born in Victoria, Australia, from 2005-2015 (529,261 cases). We applied GROW centiles, either adjusted or not adjusted for fetal sex. We compared overall SGA populations, and the populations of males considered small by sex-specific charts only (SGAsex-only), and females considered small by sex-neutral charts only (SGAunadjust-only).
resultsOf those <10th centile by sex-neutral charts, 39.6% were male and 60.5% female, but using sex-specific charts, 50.3% were male and 49.7% female. 19.2% of SGA females were reclassified as average for gestational age (AGA) using sex-specific charts. These female newborns were not at increased risk of stillbirth, combined perinatal mortality, NICU admissions, low Apgars or emergency CS compared with an AGA infant, but were at greater risk of being iatrogenically delivered on suspicion of growth restriction. 25.0% male infants were reclassified as SGA by sex-specific charts. These male newborns, compared to the AGAall infant, were at greater risk of stillbirth (RR 1.94, 95%CI 1.30-2.90), combined perinatal mortality (RR 1.80, 95%CI 1.26-2.57), NICU admissions (RR 1.38, 95%CI 1.12-1.71), Apgars <7 at 5 minutes (RR 1.40, 95%CI 1.25-1.56) and emergency CS (RR 1.12, 95%CI 1.06-1.18).
conclusionsUse of growth centiles not adjusted for fetal sex disproportionately classifies female infants as SGA, increasing their risk of unnecessary intervention, and fails to identify a cohort of male infants at increased risk of adverse outcomes, including stillbirth. Sex-specific charts may help inform decisions and improve outcomes.
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.