ArticlePregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.)2026
The association between the indication for antenatal fetal surveillance and an abnormal result: A retrospective cohort study.
Article in Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.), 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
Objective: Indications for antenatal testing have expanded, but their impact on abnormal test prevalence is unclear. We evaluated factors associated with non-reactive non-stress tests (NSTs) and abnormal biophysical profiles (BPPs) in high-risk pregnancies. Study design: In this retrospective cohort, we identified all singleton pregnancies that underwent serial antenatal testing with an NST ≥ 28 weeks at four testing sites in an academic health system between January 2022 and May 2023. A BPP was reflexively performed if the NST was non-reactive. The primary outcome was prevalence of a BPP score <8/10, with the rate of NST non-reactivity as the secondary outcome. A stepwise Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model was used to identify indications associated with these outcomes after adjusting for race, parity, gestational age (GA), and testing site. Results: Among 19,034 NSTs performed in 2695 patients (mean 7.1 NSTs/patient), only 84 (0.4%) failed to provide a reassuring result (i.e., reactive NST and/or BPP ≥ 8), while 99.6% (18950/19034) had a passing result. The overall NST reactivity rate was 87.3%. Of the 2327 BPPs performed for a non-reactive NST, 2243 (96.4%) yielded a passing score of ≥8/10. Several testing indications were significantly associated with NST non-reactivity, including chronic hypertension (aOR, 1.5; CI, 1.2-1.8), fetal growth restriction (FGR) (aOR, 1.4; CI, 1.1-1.6), other fetal/placental complications (aOR, 1.7; CI, 1.2-2.3), obesity, (aOR, 1.3; CI, 1.1-1.5) and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) (aOR, 1.3; CI, 1.0-1.6). However, only FGR (aOR, 2.7; CI, 1.5-4.7), vaginal bleeding (aOR, 6.0; CI, 1.4-25), and post-term (aOR, 8.6; CI, 1.4-51.6) were significantly associated with BPP < 8. For patients in testing for a single indication (79.4% of patients and 73.1% of NSTs), only chronic hypertension (aOR, 1.5; CI, 1.1-2.1) was significantly associated with a higher odds of non-reactivity, while only post-term was associated with BPP < 8 (aOR, 7.2; CI, 1.4-35.6). Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that in the modern-day clinical environment, only a small fraction (<1%) of fetal tests yield an abnormal result. Several testing indications were more likely to have a non-reactive NST, but only FGR, vaginal bleeding, and post-term were more likely to also have an abnormal BPP score < 8. As presenting for serial fetal testing remains a significant barrier for many patients, these data can support data-informed patient counseling and help clinicians prioritize those at greatest risk. Further research should target investigating downstream perinatal outcomes after abnormal antenatal testing and how changes in testing recommendations impact these outcomes.
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.