SynthesisJournal of global health2024
Prognostic prediction models for adverse birth outcomes: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of global health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multiple Output Gaussian Process Model for Predicting Low Birth Weight in Medellín, Colombia: An Alternative to Conventional Machine Learning Models.Maternal and child health journal · 2026Article
- "Actionable" risk for preterm birth: patterns and prediction in California singleton births 2016-2020.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Joint Modeling of Birth Outcomes Using a Copula Distributional Regression Approach.Health economics · 2026Article
- Establishment and validation of a prediction model for small vulnerable newborns: a retrospective study.Journal of global health · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite progress in reducing maternal and child mortality worldwide, adverse birth outcomes such as preterm birth, low birth weight (LBW), small for gestational age (SGA), and stillbirth continue to be a major global health challenge. Developing a prediction model for adverse birth outcomes allows for early risk detection and prevention strategies. In this systematic review, we aimed to assess the performance of existing prediction models for adverse birth outcomes and provide a comprehensive summary of their findings. Methods: We used the Population, Index prediction model, Comparator, Outcome, Timing, and Setting (PICOTS) approach to retrieve published studies from PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science, African Journals Online, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. We used WorldCat, Google, and Google Scholar to find the grey literature. We retrieved data before 1 March 2022. Data were extracted using CHecklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies. We assessed the risk of bias with the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment tool. We descriptively reported the results in tables and graphs. Results: We included 115 prediction models with the following outcomes: composite adverse birth outcomes (n = 6), LBW (n = 17), SGA (n = 23), preterm birth (n = 71), and stillbirth (n = 9). The sample sizes ranged from composite adverse birth outcomes (n = 32-549), LBW (n = 97-27 233), SGA (n = 41-116 070), preterm birth (n = 31-15 883 784), and stillbirth (n = 180-76 629). Only nine studies were conducted on low- and middle-income countries. 10 studies were externally validated. Risk of bias varied across studies, in which high risk of bias was reported on prediction models for SGA (26.1%), stillbirth (77.8%), preterm birth (31%), LBW (23.5%), and composite adverse birth outcome (33.3%). The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) was the most used metric to describe model performance. The AUROC ranged from 0.51 to 0.83 in studies that reported predictive performance for preterm birth. The AUROC for predicting SGA, LBW, and stillbirth varied from 0.54 to 0.81, 0.60 to 0.84, and 0.65 to 0.72, respectively. Maternal clinical features were the most utilised prognostic markers for preterm and LBW prediction, while uterine artery pulsatility index was used for stillbirth and SGA prediction. Conclusions: A varied prognostic factors and heterogeneity between studies were found to predict adverse birth outcomes. Prediction models using consistent prognostic factors, external validation, and adaptation of future risk prediction models for adverse birth outcomes was recommended at different settings. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42021281725.
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.