ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2025
The combined impact of meconium stained amniotic fluid and small for gestational age on delivery outcomes.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global Burden of Meconium-Stained Amniotic Fluid: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prevalence With Descriptive Synthesis of Determinants.Health science reports · 2026Review
- Predictors of adverse neonatal outcomes in low-risk nulliparous women at term with meconium-stained amniotic fluid.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Article
- Association of Meconium-Stained Amniotic Fluid and Histological Chorioamnionitis with Fetal Inflammatory Response in Preterm Deliveries.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the delivery complications in neonates with meconium stained amniotic fluid (MSAF) and small for gestational age (SGA) birthweight.
methodsThe medical records of all term, singleton deliveries during 2014-2021 were reviewed. Obstetric characteristics and neonatal outcomes were evaluated among the following groups: SGA neonates with MSAF (SGA-MSAF group), SGA neonates without MSAF (SGA group), appropriate for gestational age (AGA) neonates with MSAF (AGA-MSAF group) and AGA without MSAF (AGA group).
resultsA total of 44,911 deliveries were included in the study, with 673 in the SGA-MSAF group, 2,762 in the SGA group, 6,958 in the AGA-MSAF group, and 34,518 in the AGA group. The SGA-MSAF group exhibited higher rates of nulliparity and hypertensive disorders compared to the SGA, AGA-MSAF, and AGA groups (p ≤ 0.001). Oligohydramnios, labor induction, vacuum extractions (VE), and intrapartum cesarean deliveries (CD) were significantly more frequent in the SGA-MSAF group compared to the SGA, AGA-MSAF, and AGA groups (p ≤ 0.003). The SGA-MSAF group had the highest rates of adverse composite neonatal outcomes compared to the SGA, AGA-MSAF, and AGA groups (p < 0.001). Multivariable logistic regression, adjusted for confounders, revealed increased ORs for the adverse neonatal composite outcome, VE, VE due to NRFHR, intrapartum CD, and CD due to NRFHR, in the presence of MSAF or SGA, and mostly when both risk factors were present (p ≤ 0.002).
conclusionDeliveries complicated with MSAF and SGA were associated with increased obstetric complications compared to each alone. Clinicians should be aware of this and manage labor accordingly.
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.