SynthesisBMC pregnancy and childbirth2023
Influence of different methods for calculating gestational age at birth on prematurity and small for gestational age proportions: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gestational age assessed by optical skin reflection in low-birth-weight newborns: Applications in classification at birth.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2023Article
- Intrauterine growth restriction, prematurity, and low birth weight: risk phenotypes of neonatal death, Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil.Cadernos de saude publica · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRecognizing premature newborns and small-for-gestational-age (SGA) is essential for providing care and supporting public policies. This systematic review aims to identify the influence of the last menstrual period (LMP) compared to ultrasonography (USG) before 24 weeks of gestation references on prematurity and SGA proportions at birth.
methodsSystematic review with meta-analysis followed the recommendations of the PRISMA Statement. PubMed, BVS, LILACS, Scopus-Elsevier, Embase-Elsevier, and Web-of-Science were searched (10-30-2022). The research question was: (P) newborns, (E) USG for estimating GA, (C) LMP for estimating GA, and (O) prematurity and SGA rates for both methods. Independent reviewers screened the articles and extracted the absolute number of preterm and SGA infants, reference standards, design, countries, and bias. Prematurity was birth before 37 weeks of gestation, and SGA was the birth weight below the p10 on the growth curve. The quality of the studies was assessed using the New-Castle-Ottawa Scale. The difference between proportions estimated the size effect in a meta-analysis of prevalence.
resultsAmong the 642 articles, 20 were included for data extraction and synthesis. The prematurity proportions ranged from 1.8 to 33.6% by USG and varied from 3.4 to 16.5% by the LMP. The pooled risk difference of prematurity proportions revealed an overestimation of the preterm birth of 2% in favor of LMP, with low certainty: 0.02 (95%CI: 0.01 to 0.03); I
conclusionsLMP-based GA, compared to a USG reference, has little or no effect on prematurity proportions considering the high heterogeneity among studies. Few data (one study) remained unclear the influence of such references on SGA proportions. Results reinforced the importance of qualified GA to mitigate the impact on perinatal statistics.
trial registrationRegistration number PROSPERO: CRD42020184646.
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.