ArticleArchives of medical science : AMS2024
Customized birthweight standard for a Polish population.
Article in Archives of medical science : AMS, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: There is a growing body of evidence supporting the role of customized growth charts in improving detection of fetal growth restriction (FGR) and decreasing false positive diagnoses. The aim of the study is to produce a customised birthweight standard for Poland. Material and methods: Maternal height and weight, ethnicity, gestational age, weight and sex at birth as well as pre-existing and gestational complications were collected. Coefficients were derived using a backwards stepwise multiple regression technique. Smallness for gestational age by the customised standard was compared with the in-use Fenton standard in assessing risk of adverse outcomes using relative risk with 95% confidence intervals. Results: Data from 4,270 pregnancies were used as the study cohort. Fenton and customised SGA rates were 6.6% and 11.9%, respectively. The customised standard identified more cases that were at significantly increased risk of stillbirth, admission to neonatal intensive care or other neonatal complications, many of which were missed by the Fenton standard. Conclusions: The analysis confirmed the physiological variables that affect birthweight in studies from other countries and was able to quantify additional pathological factors of high maternal age and pregnancy-induced hypertension. Comparison with the Fenton standard showed that adverse outcomes associated with SGA birthweight are better identified by the customised standard in a Polish population.
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.