Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39586022›Full record

Trial reportUltrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology2025

Perinatal outcomes after selective third-trimester ultrasound screening for small-for-gestational age: prospective cohort study nested within DESiGN randomized controlled trial.

C Winsloe, J Elhindi, M C Vieira, S Relph, C G Arcus, K Coxon, A Briley, M Johnson, L M Page, A Shennan and 8 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2025. 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

18 authors.

C WinsloeDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course and Population Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9860-4173
J ElhindiThe Reproduction and Perinatal Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
M C VieiraDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course and Population Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.
S RelphWomen's Health Division, Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
C G ArcusThe Reproduction and Perinatal Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
K CoxonSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.
A BrileyDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course and Population Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.
M JohnsonDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
L M PageWest Middlesex University Hospital, Chelsea & Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
A ShennanDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course and Population Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.
N MarlowUCL Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
C LeesDepartment of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2104-5561
D A LawlorMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
A KhalilFetal Medicine Unit, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2802-7670
J SandallDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course and Population Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.
A CopasCentre for Pragmatic Global Health Trials, Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
D PasupathyDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course and Population Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.
DESiGN Trial Team

Funding

British Heart Foundation AA/18/1/34219British Heart Foundation CH/F/20/90003Guy's & St Thomas' Foundation MAJ150704Medical Research Council MC_UU_00032/05Stillborn and Neonatal Death Charity RG1011/16Tommy's Baby Charity
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIn screening for small-for-gestational age (SGA) using third-trimester antenatal ultrasound, there are concerns about the low detection rates and potential for harm caused by both false-negative and false-positive screening results. Using a selective third-trimester ultrasound screening program, this study aimed to investigate the incidence of adverse perinatal outcomes among cases with (i) false-negative compared with true-positive SGA diagnosis and (ii) false-positive compared with true-negative SGA diagnosis.

methodsThis prospective cohort study was nested within the UK-based DESiGN trial, a prospective multicenter cohort study of singleton pregnancies without antenatally detected fetal anomalies, born at > 24 + 0 to < 43 + 0 weeks' gestation. We included women recruited to the baseline period, or control arm, of the trial who were not exposed to the Growth Assessment Protocol intervention and whose birth outcomes were known. Stillbirth and major neonatal morbidity were the two primary outcomes. Minor neonatal morbidity was considered a secondary outcome. Suspected SGA was defined as an estimated fetal weight (EFW) < 10

resultsIn total, 165 321 pregnancies were included in the analysis. Fetuses with a false-negative SGA screening result, compared to those with a true-positive result, were at a significantly higher risk of stillbirth (adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 1.18 (95% CI, 1.07-1.31)), but at lower risk of major (aOR, 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83-0.91)) and minor (aOR, 0.56, (95% CI, 0.54-0.59)) neonatal morbidity. Compared with a true-negative screening result, a false-positive result was associated with a lower BW percentile (median, 18.1 (interquartile range (IQR), 13.3-26.9) vs 49.9 (IQR, 30.3-71.7)). A false-positive result was also associated with a significantly increased risk of stillbirth (aOR, 2.24 (95% CI, 1.88-2.68)) and minor neonatal morbidity (aOR, 1.60 (95% CI, 1.51-1.71)), but not major neonatal morbidity (aOR, 1.04 (95% CI, 0.98-1.09)).

conclusionsIn selective third-trimester ultrasound screening for SGA, both false-negative and false-positive results were associated with a significantly higher risk of stillbirth, when compared with true-positive and true-negative results, respectively. Improved SGA detection is needed to address false-negative results. It should be acknowledged that cases with a false-positive SGA screening result also constitute a high-risk population of small fetuses that warrant surveillance and timely birth. © 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

Infant, Small for Gestational AgePregnancy OutcomePregnancy Trimester, ThirdPrenatal DiagnosisUltrasonography, PrenatalAdultCohort StudiesFalse Negative ReactionsFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleFetal Growth RetardationGestational AgeHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancyProspective Studiesantenatal diagnosiscerebral intraventricular hemorrhagefetal deathfetal growth restrictionfetal weighthypoxia–ischemia, brainmissed diagnosisperinatal mortalitypregnancy complicationsprenatal ultrasonography

Identifiers

PMID39586022
PMCPMC11693816

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.