Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39586979›Full record

ReviewAmerican journal of perinatology2025

Fetal Growth Restriction: A Pragmatic Approach.

Allan Nadel, Malavika Prabhu, Anjali Kaimal

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in American journal of perinatology, 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

3 authors.

Allan NadelDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.ORCID 0009-0009-0699-4302
Malavika PrabhuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Anjali KaimalDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, Florida.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An accurate diagnosis of fetal growth restriction relies on a precise estimation of gestational age based on a carefully obtained history as well as early ultrasound, since a difference of just a few days can lead to a significant error. There is a continuum of risk for adverse outcome that depends on the certainty of dates and presence or absence of comorbidities, in addition to the estimated fetal weight percentile and the umbilical artery waveform. The results of several studies, most notably the TRUFFLE trial, demonstrate that optimal management of fetal growth restriction with an abnormal umbilical artery waveform requires daily electronic fetal heart rate monitoring, and this monitoring does not require computerized interpretation. The role of ductus venosus waveform, biophysical profile, and middle cerebral artery waveform is less clear, and the results of these three modalities should be interpreted with caution. · A correct diagnosis of fetal growth restriction requires a very precise estimate of gestational age.. · In the presence of abnormal umbilical artery Doppler, the cornerstone of surveillance is daily electronic fetal heart rate monitoring.. · Surveillance with biophysical profile, ductus venosus waveform, and middle cerebral artery waveform are less important than daily electronic fetal heart rate monitoring..

Indexed as

Fetal Growth RetardationUmbilical ArteriesCardiotocographyFemaleGestational AgeHeart Rate, FetalHumansMiddle Cerebral ArteryPregnancyUltrasonography, DopplerUltrasonography, Prenatal

Identifiers

PMID39586979
PMCPMC12136975

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.