Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36992751›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in clinical diabetes and healthcare2022

Non-invasive Maternal Hemodynamic Assessment to Classify High-Risk Pregnancies Complicated by Fetal Growth Restriction.

Sara Ornaghi, Andrea Caricati, Daniela Denis Di Martino, Martina Mossa, Sara Di Nicola, Francesca Invernizzi, Sara Zullino, Sara Clemenza, Valentina Barbati, Gabriele Tinè and 3 more

Open access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in clinical diabetes and healthcare, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Observational
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

13 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Sara OrnaghiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Unit of Obstetrics, Monza e Brianza per il Bambino e la sua Mamma Foundation Onlus at San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy.
Andrea CaricatiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Unit of Obstetrics, Department of Woman, Child, and Newborn, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda - Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Daniela Denis Di MartinoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Unit of Obstetrics, Department of Woman, Child, and Newborn, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda - Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Martina MossaUniversity of Milan-Bicocca School of Medicine and Surgery, Monza, Italy.
Sara Di NicolaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Unit of Obstetrics, Monza e Brianza per il Bambino e la sua Mamma Foundation Onlus at San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy.
Francesca InvernizziDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Unit of Obstetrics, Monza e Brianza per il Bambino e la sua Mamma Foundation Onlus at San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy.
Sara ZullinoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Biomedical, Experimental and Clinical Sciences, University Hospital Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Sara ClemenzaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Biomedical, Experimental and Clinical Sciences, University Hospital Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Valentina BarbatiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Unit of Obstetrics, Department of Woman, Child, and Newborn, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda - Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Gabriele TinèDepartment of Economics and Quantitative Methods, University of Milan-Bicocca, Monza, Italy.
Federico MecacciDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Biomedical, Experimental and Clinical Sciences, University Hospital Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Enrico FerrazziDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Unit of Obstetrics, Department of Woman, Child, and Newborn, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda - Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Patrizia VerganiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Unit of Obstetrics, Monza e Brianza per il Bambino e la sua Mamma Foundation Onlus at San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy.
University of Milano-Bicocca · ITAzienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi · ITFondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico · ITAzienda Ospedaliera San Gerardo · ITUniversity of Milan · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To verify whether the use of the temporal criterion of 32 weeks' gestation is effective in identifying maternal hemodynamic differences between early- and late-onset fetal growth restriction (FGR), and to test the statistical performance of a classificatory algorithm for FGR. Materials and methods: A prospective multicenter study conducted at three centers over 17 months. Singleton pregnant women with a diagnosis of FGR based on the international Delphi survey consensus at ≥ 20 weeks of gestation were included. FGR was classified as early-onset if diagnosed <32 weeks' gestation and as late-onset if ≥32 weeks. Hemodynamic assessment was performed by USCOM-1A at the time of FGR diagnosis. Comparisons between early- and late-onset FGR among the entire study cohort, FGR associated with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP-FGR), and isolated FGR (i-FGR) were performed. In addition, HDP-FGR cases were compared to i-FGR, regardless of the temporal cut-off of 32 weeks' gestation. Finally, a classificatory analysis based on the Random Forest model was performed to identify significant variables with the ability to differentiate FGR phenotypes. Results: During the study period, 146 pregnant women fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In 44 cases, FGR was not confirmed at birth, thus limiting the final study population to 102 patients. In 49 (48.1%) women, FGR was associated to HDP. Fifty-nine (57.8%) cases were classified as early-onset. Comparison of the maternal hemodynamics between early- and late-onset FGR did not show any difference. Similarly, non-significant findings were observed in sensitivity analyses performed for HDP-FGR and for i-FGR. In turn, comparison between pregnant women with FGR and hypertension and women with i-FGR, independently of the gestational age at FGR diagnosis, revealed substantial differences, with the former showing higher vascular peripheral resistances and lower cardiac output, among other significant parameters. The classificatory analysis identified both phenotypic and hemodynamic variables as relevant in distinguishing HDP-FGR from i-FGR (p=0.009). Conclusions: Our data show that HDP, rather than gestational age at FGR diagnosis, allows to appreciate specific maternal hemodynamic patterns and to accurately distinguish two different FGR phenotypes. In addition, maternal hemodynamics, alongside phenotypic characteristics, play a central role in classifying these high-risk pregnancies.

Indexed as

Fetal growth restriction (FGR)gestational agehemodynamichypertensionpregnancyUSCOM-1A

Identifiers

PMID36992751
PMCPMC10012115
OpenAlexW4225376652

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read28
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.