ArticleIranian journal of medical sciences2024
Foramen Ovale Pulsatility Index as an Early Affected Doppler Study among Abnormal Growth Fetuses: A Recent Insight for Practice Based on a Prospective Study.
Article in Iranian journal of medical sciences, 2024. 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.
- The Association between Serum Biochemical Markers and Early Amniocentesis in Diagnosing Chromosomal Anomalies: A Cross-Sectional Study in Southern Iran, 2021-2022.Iranian journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- Prognostic value of foramen ovale morphology and hemodynamics in late-onset fetal growth restriction: a 3D ultrasonography-based study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Routine Doppler study is a common tool for early diagnosis of Fetal Growth Restriction (FGR) and Small for Gestational Age (SGA) patients. It aimed to determine the role of the Foramen Ovale Pulsatility Index (FOPI) study beside routine Doppler study among patients with FGR and SGA fetuses. Methods: This prospective study was conducted on 35 FGR, 32 SGA, and 33 Appropriate for Gestational Age (AGA) fetuses. Demographic data, amniotic fluid index, neonatal outcome, and Doppler velocimetry, including Umbilical Artery Pulsatility Index (UMAPI), Uterine Artery Pulsatility Index (UTAPI), Middle Cerebral Artery Pulsatility Index (MCAPI), Ductus Venosus Pulsatility Index (DVPI), and FOPI were documented. Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test, one-way ANOVA, Mann-Whitney U, Kruskal-Wallis, non-parametric pairwise comparisons adjusted for Bonferroni correction, Pearson correlation test, Chi square, Fisher's exact test, and Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (ROC) analysis with Youden's Index (sensitivity+specificity-1) to estimate cut-off point were used to analyze the data at significance level <0.05 for all tests. Results: FOPI cut-off points were 2.24 (sensitivity=77%, specificity=94%) and 1.15 (sensitivity=90%, specificity=20%) to predict FGR and SGA, respectively. FOPI showed a positive correlation with UMAPI and UTAPI (r=0.52 and r=0.30, P<0.001 and P=0.006, respectively), but not with MCAPI and DVPI (r=0.08 and r=0.12, P=0.50 and P=0.30, respectively). Besides, UMAPI, UTAPI, and FOPI were altered among patients with stages I and II FGR. Umbilical cord potential hydrogen (umbilical cord pH), 1- and 5-min Apgar score significantly increased by Birth weight centile; however, UMAPI, FOPI, and UTAPI significantly decreased. Conclusion: UMAPI is recommended to predict short-term neonatal morbidities and demonstrate the early or late onset FGR. Besides, FOPI is suggested as the first-line Doppler study to detect abnormal growth velocity. More studies are warranted, especially considering long-term neonatal morbidities.
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.