Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39462797›Full record

ArticleUltrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology2024

Validation of Fetal Medicine Foundation charts for fetal growth in twins: nationwide Danish cohort study.

S E Kristensen, A Wright, D Wright, K Gadsbøll, C K Ekelund, P Sandager, F S Jørgensen, E Hoseth, L Sperling, H J Zingenberg and 4 more

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

14 authors.

S E KristensenCenter for Fetal Medicine, Pregnancy and Ultrasound, Department of Gynecology, Fertility and Obstetrics, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-4633-4738
A WrightInstitute of Health Research, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
D WrightInstitute of Health Research, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
K GadsbøllCenter for Fetal Medicine, Pregnancy and Ultrasound, Department of Gynecology, Fertility and Obstetrics, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
C K EkelundCenter for Fetal Medicine, Pregnancy and Ultrasound, Department of Gynecology, Fertility and Obstetrics, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
P SandagerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Center for Fetal Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
F S JørgensenFaculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
E HosethDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clinic of Ultrasound, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
L SperlingDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Center for Ultrasound and Pregnancy, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
H J ZingenbergDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ultrasound in Pregnancy, Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte, Herlev, Denmark.
K SundbergCenter for Fetal Medicine, Pregnancy and Ultrasound, Department of Gynecology, Fertility and Obstetrics, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
A McLennanSydney Ultrasound for Women, Chatswood, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8979-4534
K H NicolaidesHarris Birthright Research Centre for Fetal Medicine, King's College Hospital, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1266-0711
O B PetersenCenter for Fetal Medicine, Pregnancy and Ultrasound, Department of Gynecology, Fertility and Obstetrics, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-8517-4082

Funding

Novo Nordisk Fonden NNFSA170030576
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the validity of the Fetal Medicine Foundation (FMF) chorionicity-specific models for fetal growth in twin pregnancy.

methodsThis was an external validation study of the FMF models using a nationwide Danish cohort of twin pregnancies. The cohort included all dichorionic (DC) and monochorionic diamniotic (MCDA) twin pregnancies with an estimated delivery date between 2008 and 2018, which satisfied the following inclusion criteria: two live fetuses at the first-trimester ultrasound scan (11-14 weeks' gestation); biometric measurements available for the calculation of estimated fetal weight (EFW) using the Hadlock-3 formula; and delivery of two liveborn infants. Validation involved assessing the distributional properties of the models and estimating the mean EFW Z-score deviations. Additionally, the models were applied to pregnancies that delivered preterm and attended non-scheduled visits (complicated pregnancies).

resultsOverall, 8542 DC and 1675 MCDA twin pregnancies met the inclusion criteria. In DC twins, 17 084 fetuses were evaluated at a total of 95 346 ultrasound scans, of which 44.5% were performed at scheduled visits in pregnancies carried to 37 + 0 weeks or later. The median number of growth scans per DC twin fetus from 20 + 0 weeks onwards was four. The model showed good agreement with the validation cohort for scheduled visits in DC twins delivered at 37 + 0 weeks or later (mean ± SD EFW Z-score, -0.14 ± 1.05). In MCDA twins, 3350 fetuses underwent 31 632 eligible ultrasound scans, of which 59.5% were performed at scheduled visits in pregnancies carried to 36 + 0 weeks or later. The median number of growth scans per MCDA twin fetus from 16 + 0 weeks onwards was 10. The model showed favorable agreement with the validation cohort for scheduled visits in MCDA twins delivered at 36 + 0 weeks or later (mean ± SD EFW Z-score, -0.09 ± 1.01). Non-scheduled visits and preterm delivery before 37 + 0 weeks for DC twins and before 36 + 0 weeks for MCDA twins corresponded with smaller weight estimates, which was consistent with the study's definition of complicated pregnancy.

conclusionsThe FMF models provide a good fit for EFW measurements in our Danish national cohort of uncomplicated twin pregnancies assessed at routine scans. Therefore, the FMF models establish robust criteria for subsequent investigations and potential clinical applications. Future research should focus on exploring the consequences of clinical implementation, particularly regarding the identification of twins that are small-for-gestational age, as they are especially susceptible to adverse perinatal outcome. © 2024 The Author(s). Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Indexed as

Fetal DevelopmentFetal WeightPregnancy, TwinUltrasonography, PrenatalAdultCohort StudiesDenmarkFemaleGestational AgeGrowth ChartsHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancyPregnancy Trimester, Firstdichorionicexternal validationfetal growth modelgrowth monitoringmonochorionic diamnioticnational cohortsingleton reference distributionsmall‐for‐gestational agetwin pregnancytwin reference distribution

Identifiers

PMID39462797
PMCPMC11609905

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.