Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39342615›Full record

ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2024

Outcomes of pregnancies with varying levels of nuchal translucency measurements: A population-based retrospective study in Ontario, Canada.

Kara Bellai-Dussault, Shelley D Dougan, Deshayne B Fell, Carolina Lavin Venegas, Julian Little, Lynn Meng, Nan Okun, Mark Walker, Christine M Armour, Beth K Potter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Kara Bellai-DussaultUniversity of Ottawa, School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0225-1906
Shelley D DouganPrenatal Screening Ontario, Better Outcomes Registry & Network (BORN) Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Deshayne B FellUniversity of Ottawa, School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Carolina Lavin VenegasPrenatal Screening Ontario, Better Outcomes Registry & Network (BORN) Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Julian LittleUniversity of Ottawa, School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Lynn MengPrenatal Screening Ontario, Better Outcomes Registry & Network (BORN) Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Nan OkunPrenatal Screening Ontario, Better Outcomes Registry & Network (BORN) Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Mark WalkerPrenatal Screening Ontario, Better Outcomes Registry & Network (BORN) Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Christine M ArmourPrenatal Screening Ontario, Better Outcomes Registry & Network (BORN) Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Beth K PotterUniversity of Ottawa, School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionNuchal translucency prenatal ultrasound is widely used to screen for chromosomal abnormalities. An elevated nuchal translucency has been associated with adverse outcomes such as pregnancy loss; however, extant studies investigating these associations have had important limitations, including selection bias. This study aimed to investigate the association between nuchal translucency measurements and pregnancy outcome, specifically, a composite of pregnancy loss, termination, stillbirth, or neonatal death. MATERIAL AND

methodsThis was a population-based retrospective cohort study conducted with data from the prescribed perinatal registry in Ontario, Canada, Better Outcomes Registry & Network. All singleton pregnancies with an estimated date of delivery from September 1, 2016, to March 31, 2021, and multiple marker screening including a nuchal translucency were included. Pregnancies with measurements 2.0- < 2.5 mm, 2.5- < 3.0 mm, 3.0- < 3.5 mm, 3.5- < 5.0 mm, 5.0- < 6.5 mm, and ≥6.5 mm were compared to a reference group with measurements <2.0 mm. We used multivariable modified Poisson regression models with robust variance estimation to estimate associations between nuchal translucency measurement and pregnancy outcome, with adjustment for age at estimated date of delivery and gestational age at screening.

resultsThere were 414 268 singleton pregnancies included in the study. The risk of pregnancy loss, termination, stillbirth, or neonatal death increased with increasing levels of nuchal translucency measurements, with an adjusted risk ratio (aRR) of 11.9 (95% confidence interval (CI) 9.9, 14.3) in the group with measurements 3.5- < 5.0 mm. When pregnancies with diagnosed chromosomal abnormalities were excluded, this association remained strong, with an aRR of 6.4 (95% CI 4.8, 8.5). Among pregnancies with a live birth, those with a higher nuchal translucency measurement (>5.0 mm vs. <2.0 mm) were also at increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes such as admission to the neonatal intensive care unit and APGAR score <7.

conclusionsIn this population-based study using robust methods to reduce the risk of selection bias, we found that pregnancies with increased nuchal translucency measurements are less likely to result in a live birth, even with the exclusion of chromosomal abnormalities. Pregnancies with increased nuchal translucency measurements that resulted in a live birth may also be at increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes.

Indexed as

Nuchal Translucency MeasurementPregnancy OutcomeAbortion, SpontaneousAdultFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornOntarioPregnancyRegistriesRetrospective StudiesStillbirthchromosomal abnormalitiesnuchal translucencyperinatal outcomespregnancy outcomeprenatal screening

Identifiers

PMID39342615
PMCPMC11610011

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.