Trial reportPaediatric and perinatal epidemiology2026
Choice of Growth Standard and Interpretation of Large for Gestational Age Outcomes: Evidence From the CDC4G Trial.
Trial report in Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology, 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe lack of a standardised definition of large for gestational age (LGA) complicates clinical assessments and the interpretation of research.
objectiveThe objective of this study is to assess how different definitions of LGA affect the interpretation of outcomes in a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial (SW-CRT).
methodsSecondary analysis of the Changing Diagnostic Criteria for Gestational Diabetes (CDC4G, ISRCTN41918550) study population (n = 47,080 pregnancies), including eight delivery units in Sweden during 2018. The outcome measures were the prevalence of LGA and severe LGA before and after switching from the previous Swedish diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes (SWE-GDM) to the World Health Organisation (WHO-2013) criteria. LGA and severe LGA were defined as birthweight > 90th and > 97th percentile, respectively, using the following reference growth charts: The new Swedish reference ranges for fetal weight (SWE-REF), the Gestation Related Optimal Weight (GROW) and the International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st Century (Intergrowth-21st). Analyses were performed on a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population and on the subgroup discordant for GDM diagnosis between new and former criteria, i.e., glucose levels between the WHO-2013 and SWE-GDM diagnostic thresholds.
resultsIn the mITT population, the prevalence of LGA decreased from 19.4% to 13.1% after the switch to the WHO-2013 GDM criteria, as defined by SWE-REF (adjusted relative risk [RR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86, 0.98). There was no change in severe LGA using any of the reference charts. In the subgroup, LGA defined by SWE-REF (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50, 0.91) and GROW (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.63, 0.95) was reduced, but not when defined by Intergrowth-21st (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74, 1.06). Severe LGA was reduced only when defined by Intergrowth-21st (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62, 0.85).
conclusionsThe choice of LGA definition affected the interpretation of the results in the CDC4G trial.
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.