ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Comparative effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for fetal growth restriction: a network meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Fetal growth restriction (FGR) is a common pregnancy complication associated with adverse maternal and fetal outcomes. Effective pharmacological interventions are essential for enhancing fetal growth and mitigating related complications. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of various pharmacological treatments for FGR using a network meta-analysis (NMA). Objective: To systematically evaluate and compare the effectiveness of different pharmacological interventions for FGR via a network meta-analysis (NMA). Strategy: A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science. The search was updated through 31 January 2026, to ensure the inclusion of the most recent evidence. Selection Criteria: Eligible studies included singleton pregnancies at high risk of FGR. Studies were excluded if they involved multiple pregnancies, fetal genetic abnormalities, or maternal comorbidities such as drug or alcohol abuse. Data Collection and Analysis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted in strict accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines to ensure methodological rigor. Main Results: Compared with the control group and low-dose aspirin (LDA) alone, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and the combination of LMWH + LDA significantly reduced the incidence of intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) (odds ratio [OR] = 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.26-0.62; OR = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.15-0.93, respectively). Additionally, LMWH monotherapy significantly decreased the risk of several pregnancy complications, including preeclampsia (OR = 0.21, 95% CI = 0.05-0.93), preterm birth (OR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.45-0.81), miscarriage (OR = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.19-0.91), and cesarean section (OR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.18-0.67). The combination of LMWH + LDA significantly improved the live birth rate (OR = 7.08, 95% CI = 2.16-23.22) and reduced the incidence of preeclampsia (OR = 0.22, 95% CI = 0.08-0.59). Conclusion: LMWH and LMWH combined with LDA are effective in reducing IUGR, preventing preeclampsia, and improving live birth rates in high-risk pregnancies complicated by FGR. These findings provide robust evidence supporting the use of LMWH and LMWH + LDA as promising therapeutic options for the management of FGR. Clinical Trial Registration: PROSPERO registration: CRD420251142968.
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.