ArticleCureus2026
Antenatal Detection Rate of Foetal Growth Restriction in Primary Healthcare Centres: A Service Evaluation From Dammam, Saudi Arabia.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction We aimed to evaluate the antenatal detection of foetal growth restriction (FGR) in pregnant women receiving care at primary healthcare centres (PHCCs) in Dammam, Saudi Arabia. Methods This prospective cohort study was conducted as a service evaluation of routine antenatal care pathways in PHCCs in Dammam, Saudi Arabia. Pregnant women who underwent dating scans between January and May 2024 were enrolled and followed up until December 2024 to identify and detect FGR using standardised ultrasonography based on the Delphi consensus criteria. Results Among 210 pregnancies with complete birth outcomes, 19 neonates (9.0%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 5.9%-13.7%) were identified as having FGR. Of these, 12 (63.2%; 95% CI: 41.0%-80.9%) were detected antenatally at PHCCs using the Delphi consensus criteria, and seven (36.8%) were identified postnatally, corresponding to women who missed the scheduled third-trimester ultrasonography examination (growth scan) at 32-36 weeks. Most participants completed the follow-up (90.5%; 210/232; 95% CI: 86.1%-93.7%). Conclusion FGR was identified in 9% of pregnancies within the PHCCs. However, a considerable proportion of FGR cases remain undiagnosed antenatally, largely because of missed third-trimester growth scans, which underlie these undetected cases and underscore the need for improved adherence to scheduled ultrasonography. PHCCs can be the first line of surveillance for FGR when supported by structured systems and trained staff.
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.