Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41828082›Full record

ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2026

Fetal Growth Restriction: Contemporary Evidence to Guide Delivery Timing and Intrapartum Management.

Ana Carolina Rabachini Caetano, Ana Cristina Perez Zamarian, Luciano Marcondes Machado Nardozza, Seizo Miyadahira, Giselle Darahem Tedesco, Lara Dariolli Rossi, Gustavo Yano Callado, Edward Araujo Júnior, Alessandra Cristina Marcolin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Ana Carolina Rabachini CaetanoDepartment of Obstetrics, Paulista School of Medicine, Federal University of São Paulo (EPM-UNIFESP), São Paulo 04023-062, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-4941-623X
Ana Cristina Perez ZamarianDepartment of Obstetrics, Paulista School of Medicine, Federal University of São Paulo (EPM-UNIFESP), São Paulo 04023-062, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-1292-7917
Luciano Marcondes Machado NardozzaDepartment of Obstetrics, Paulista School of Medicine, Federal University of São Paulo (EPM-UNIFESP), São Paulo 04023-062, SP, Brazil.
Seizo MiyadahiraDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of São Paulo (USP), São Paulo 01246-903, SP, Brazil.
Giselle Darahem TedescoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medical Sciences of Santa Casa of São Paulo (FCMSCSP), São Paulo 01224-001, SP, Brazil.
Lara Dariolli RossiDepartment of Obstetrics, Paulista School of Medicine, Federal University of São Paulo (EPM-UNIFESP), São Paulo 04023-062, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-7301-5970
Gustavo Yano CalladoAlbert Einstein Israelite College of Health Sciences, Albert Einstein Israelite Hospital, São Paulo 05653-000, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-6694-6569
Edward Araujo JúniorDepartment of Obstetrics, Paulista School of Medicine, Federal University of São Paulo (EPM-UNIFESP), São Paulo 04023-062, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-6145-2532
Alessandra Cristina MarcolinDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo (FMRP-USP), Ribeirão Preto 14049-900, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-2536-2553

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fetal growth restriction (FGR), a condition in which the fetus fails to achieve its growth and developmental potential, affects 5% to 10% of pregnancies and is associated with high rates of perinatal morbidity and mortality. There is currently insufficient high-quality evidence to define the optimal approach for diagnosing fetal growth restriction. In 2016, with the aim of standardizing clinical practice and enabling comparability across scientific studies, an expert opinion-based consensus was published. This document proposed unified terminology and clear diagnostic criteria for early- and late-onset fetal growth restriction (FGR). Because no effective treatment is available, careful assessment of fetal well-being and appropriate timing of delivery are the main tools for managing these fetuses. This decision should be based on gestational age and the severity of abnormalities identified on fetal surveillance tests, balancing the risks of prematurity against the risks of severe permanent sequelae or fetal death. The objective of this update is to analyze the most recent evidence on when and how to deliver pregnancies complicated by fetal growth restriction, emphasizing that specific abnormalities on fetal surveillance examinations warrant delivery at different gestational ages. To this end, a literature search of the PubMed/Medline and Latin America and the Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) databases was conducted using the terms fetal growth restriction, management, and delivery over the past ten years. Results were grouped into gestational age at delivery, mode of delivery, and methods of labor induction. The main fetal surveillance abnormalities prompting delivery in each gestational-age range were discussed, leading to the development of management flowcharts. Despite the lack of consensus in the literature and the limited number of randomized clinical trials guiding clinical decisions in FGR, the available evidence was summarized to assist clinicians in managing pregnancies complicated by FGR. It should be emphasized that there are few randomized clinical trials to guide management decisions in FGR.

Indexed as

deliveryDoppler velocimetryfetal growth restrictionfetal surveillancemanagementperinatal morbidity and mortality

Identifiers

PMID41828082
PMCPMC12984162

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.