Rebecca Horgan,Ahmed S Z Moustafa,Mackenzi Mchugh,Tetsuya Kawakita,Baha Sibai,George Saade
{"title":"Timing of Delivery in Preeclampsia: Time to Reconsider?","authors":"Rebecca Horgan,Ahmed S Z Moustafa,Mackenzi Mchugh,Tetsuya Kawakita,Baha Sibai,George Saade","doi":"10.1111/1471-0528.70077","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.70077","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":8984,"journal":{"name":"BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","volume":"143 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145477412","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Background Growth charts are commonly used for monitoring attained size at a specified age relative to a population average considered to represent expected growth. Objectives To evaluate the impact of the application of international growth charts for children under five on common growth metrics when compared to national reference charts. Search Strategy We conducted a systematic literature search across five electronic databases: CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost), EMBASE (Ovid), MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, and Web of Science. Selection Criteria Studies published in English between 2007 and 2023 that made comparisons between national reference charts and either INTERGROWTH‐21st (IG‐21st) or WHO Child Growth (WHO CGS) charts. Data Collection and Analysis Common growth metrics were compared using either z‐scores or centiles. The prevalence of small‐ and large‐for‐gestational age, stunting, wasting, underweight, overweight, and obesity was compared when calculated using international standards versus national charts. Main Results We identified 1556 records, of which 314 were excluded as they were duplicates, 1069 after reading the title and abstract, 90 after reading the full texts, and 7 we could not retrieve the full texts. Z‐score or centile values of local references were more often reported to be higher than values of WHO CGS when evaluating weight‐, length‐, or head circumference‐ for‐ age. Seven of 11 studies reported higher rates of small‐for‐gestational age, while four of five studies reported lower rates of large‐for‐gestational age using local references compared to IG‐21st standards. Conclusions Meaningful differences exist in growth assessment between national and international charts that have implications for identifying at‐risk infants.
{"title":"Growth Monitoring of Children Under Five Years Using National Reference Charts Versus International Growth Standards, 2007–2023: A Systematic Review","authors":"Bancy Ngatia, Linda Vesel, Eric O. Ohuma","doi":"10.1111/1471-0528.70068","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.70068","url":null,"abstract":"Background Growth charts are commonly used for monitoring attained size at a specified age relative to a population average considered to represent expected growth. Objectives To evaluate the impact of the application of international growth charts for children under five on common growth metrics when compared to national reference charts. Search Strategy We conducted a systematic literature search across five electronic databases: CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost), EMBASE (Ovid), MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, and Web of Science. Selection Criteria Studies published in English between 2007 and 2023 that made comparisons between national reference charts and either INTERGROWTH‐21st (IG‐21st) or WHO Child Growth (WHO CGS) charts. Data Collection and Analysis Common growth metrics were compared using either z‐scores or centiles. The prevalence of small‐ and large‐for‐gestational age, stunting, wasting, underweight, overweight, and obesity was compared when calculated using international standards versus national charts. Main Results We identified 1556 records, of which 314 were excluded as they were duplicates, 1069 after reading the title and abstract, 90 after reading the full texts, and 7 we could not retrieve the full texts. Z‐score or centile values of local references were more often reported to be higher than values of WHO CGS when evaluating weight‐, length‐, or head circumference‐ for‐ age. Seven of 11 studies reported higher rates of small‐for‐gestational age, while four of five studies reported lower rates of large‐for‐gestational age using local references compared to IG‐21st standards. Conclusions Meaningful differences exist in growth assessment between national and international charts that have implications for identifying at‐risk infants.","PeriodicalId":8984,"journal":{"name":"BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145447173","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Helen B Gomez Slagle,Yongmei Huang,Cande V Ananth,Uma M Reddy,Marie-Julie Trahan,Alexander M Friedman
OBJECTIVETo evaluate the association of vaginal versus caesarean birth with neonatal and maternal outcomes for breech, singleton deliveries at 22 0/7 to 25 6/7 weeks of gestation.DESIGNRetrospective cohort study.SETTINGHospital births in the United States.POPULATIONThis study analysed non-anomalous, singleton, breech live births at 22 0/7 to 25 6/7 weeks of gestation identified in the linked birth-infant death records data from 2016 to 2021.METHODSA propensity score analysis was conducted to establish pseudo-randomization based on the mode of delivery, matching vaginal to caesarean deliveries at a ratio of 1:2 using greedy nearest-neighbour matching. The propensity score estimation included year of delivery, maternal age, race/ethnicity, pre-pregnancy body mass index, parity, marital status, maternal education, insurance status, attendant at delivery, smoking status, hypertensive disorders, diabetes mellitus, gestational age, induction of labour and whether a trial of labour was attempted. We estimated the risk differences (RD) and odds ratios (OR) and associated 95% CIs, taking the matching into consideration. Multiple imputation was used to account for missing data.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURESComposite adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes.RESULTSOf 21,461 periviable breech singleton births, 34.0% (n = 7289) were delivered vaginally. The median gestational age was 24 (IQR: 23-25) and 23 (IQR: 22-24) weeks in the vaginal and caesarean delivery groups, respectively. Earlier gestational age was associated with vaginal birth, while later gestational age was associated with caesarean births. After propensity score matching, the distributions of baseline factors, except for gestational age, were balanced between the vaginal and caesarean delivery groups. A composite of adverse neonatal outcomes occurred among 99.0% (n = 7213) of vaginal and 96.8% (n = 13,716) of caesarean breech births (aRD 1.8%, 95% CI 1.3 to 2.4; aOR 2.25, 95% CI 1.59 to 3.17). Neonatal mortality rates were higher among vaginal compared to caesarean breech births (72.6% versus 36.2%; aRD 26.8%, 95% CI 25.0 to 28.6; aOR 3.15, 95% CI 2.85 to 3.48). A composite of adverse maternal outcomes occurred in 1.6% of vaginal breech and 3.1% of caesarean births (aRD -1.7%, 95% CI -2.2 to -1.1; aOR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.63).CONCLUSIONSVaginal breech birth between 22 0/7 and 25 6/7 weeks of gestation is associated with a lower risk of adverse maternal outcomes but a higher risk of neonatal adverse outcomes and mortality.
目的评价阴道分娩与剖宫产在妊娠22 0/7周至25 6/7周单胎分娩与新生儿和产妇结局的关系。设计回顾性队列研究。美国的医院分娩情况。本研究分析了2016年至2021年相关出生-婴儿死亡记录数据中确定的妊娠22 0/7至25 6/7周的非异常、单胎、臀位活产。方法根据分娩方式进行倾向评分分析，建立伪随机化，采用贪婪近邻匹配法，将阴道分娩与剖宫产按1:2的比例进行匹配。倾向评分估计包括分娩年份、产妇年龄、种族/民族、孕前体重指数、胎次、婚姻状况、产妇受教育程度、保险状况、助产人员、吸烟状况、高血压疾病、糖尿病、胎龄、引产以及是否尝试引产。考虑到匹配，我们估计了风险差异（RD）和优势比（OR）以及相关的95% ci。使用多重输入来解释缺失的数据。主要结局指标新生儿和产妇的综合不良结局。结果21461例围产单胎中，34.0%（7289例）为顺产。阴道组和剖宫产组的中位胎龄分别为24周（IQR: 23-25）和23周（IQR: 22-24）。早孕龄与顺产有关，而晚孕龄与剖腹产有关。倾向评分匹配后，除胎龄外，基线因素的分布在阴道分娩组和剖宫产组之间达到平衡。99.0% （n = 7213）的阴道分娩和96.8% （n = 13716）的剖宫产分娩发生了新生儿不良结局的综合（死亡率1.8%,95% CI 1.3 ~ 2.4；死亡率2.25,95% CI 1.59 ~ 3.17）。阴道分娩的新生儿死亡率高于剖宫产（72.6% vs 36.2%；产后死亡率26.8%,95% CI 25.0 ~ 28.6；产后死亡率3.15,95% CI 2.85 ~ 3.48）。1.6%的阴道分娩和3.1%的剖宫产发生了综合不良产妇结局（相对危险度为-1.7%，95% CI为-2.2至-1.1；相对危险度为0.47,95% CI为0.35至0.63）。结论妊娠22 0/7周至25 6/7周阴道分娩与产妇不良结局风险较低相关，但新生儿不良结局和死亡风险较高。
{"title":"Outcomes Among Vaginal Versus Caesarean Periviable Breech Deliveries: A Propensity Score-Matched Study.","authors":"Helen B Gomez Slagle,Yongmei Huang,Cande V Ananth,Uma M Reddy,Marie-Julie Trahan,Alexander M Friedman","doi":"10.1111/1471-0528.70067","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.70067","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVETo evaluate the association of vaginal versus caesarean birth with neonatal and maternal outcomes for breech, singleton deliveries at 22 0/7 to 25 6/7 weeks of gestation.DESIGNRetrospective cohort study.SETTINGHospital births in the United States.POPULATIONThis study analysed non-anomalous, singleton, breech live births at 22 0/7 to 25 6/7 weeks of gestation identified in the linked birth-infant death records data from 2016 to 2021.METHODSA propensity score analysis was conducted to establish pseudo-randomization based on the mode of delivery, matching vaginal to caesarean deliveries at a ratio of 1:2 using greedy nearest-neighbour matching. The propensity score estimation included year of delivery, maternal age, race/ethnicity, pre-pregnancy body mass index, parity, marital status, maternal education, insurance status, attendant at delivery, smoking status, hypertensive disorders, diabetes mellitus, gestational age, induction of labour and whether a trial of labour was attempted. We estimated the risk differences (RD) and odds ratios (OR) and associated 95% CIs, taking the matching into consideration. Multiple imputation was used to account for missing data.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURESComposite adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes.RESULTSOf 21,461 periviable breech singleton births, 34.0% (n = 7289) were delivered vaginally. The median gestational age was 24 (IQR: 23-25) and 23 (IQR: 22-24) weeks in the vaginal and caesarean delivery groups, respectively. Earlier gestational age was associated with vaginal birth, while later gestational age was associated with caesarean births. After propensity score matching, the distributions of baseline factors, except for gestational age, were balanced between the vaginal and caesarean delivery groups. A composite of adverse neonatal outcomes occurred among 99.0% (n = 7213) of vaginal and 96.8% (n = 13,716) of caesarean breech births (aRD 1.8%, 95% CI 1.3 to 2.4; aOR 2.25, 95% CI 1.59 to 3.17). Neonatal mortality rates were higher among vaginal compared to caesarean breech births (72.6% versus 36.2%; aRD 26.8%, 95% CI 25.0 to 28.6; aOR 3.15, 95% CI 2.85 to 3.48). A composite of adverse maternal outcomes occurred in 1.6% of vaginal breech and 3.1% of caesarean births (aRD -1.7%, 95% CI -2.2 to -1.1; aOR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.63).CONCLUSIONSVaginal breech birth between 22 0/7 and 25 6/7 weeks of gestation is associated with a lower risk of adverse maternal outcomes but a higher risk of neonatal adverse outcomes and mortality.","PeriodicalId":8984,"journal":{"name":"BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","volume":"54 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145351778","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Elective Caesarean Section Tug of War.","authors":"Alexander Danson","doi":"10.1111/1471-0528.70070","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.70070","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":8984,"journal":{"name":"BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","volume":"81 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145351777","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
S. Sawan, N. Eftekhari, K. Linton-Reid, N. Wood, T. A. Numan, E. O. Aboagye, C. Angione
Artificial intelligence (AI) is an emerging powerful technology that differs from traditional computer programs in its ability to learn from its results and enhance performance, mimicking human intelligence, hence the name. AI is already an important part of most computer-based tasks in our daily lives. Everyday examples include internet search engines and products that provide face recognition or predict the outbreak of diseases.
{"title":"Artificial Intelligence in Gynaecology Oncology","authors":"S. Sawan, N. Eftekhari, K. Linton-Reid, N. Wood, T. A. Numan, E. O. Aboagye, C. Angione","doi":"10.1111/1471-0528.70005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.70005","url":null,"abstract":"Artificial intelligence (AI) is an emerging powerful technology that differs from traditional computer programs in its ability to learn from its results and enhance performance, mimicking human intelligence, hence the name. AI is already an important part of most computer-based tasks in our daily lives. Everyday examples include internet search engines and products that provide face recognition or predict the outbreak of diseases.","PeriodicalId":8984,"journal":{"name":"BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145288246","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Cholesterol-Lowering Diet and Female Hormone-Related Cancer Risk","authors":"Liyue Hou, Buyuan Dong","doi":"10.1111/1471-0528.70033","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.70033","url":null,"abstract":"Click on the article title to read more.","PeriodicalId":8984,"journal":{"name":"BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145229304","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Immature Granulocytes: A New Left Shift Improves Sepsis Detection","authors":"Andrew Kotaska","doi":"10.1111/1471-0528.70049","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.70049","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":8984,"journal":{"name":"BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145228746","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Integrating Antenatal Exercise Into Practice to Curb Postpartum Depression.","authors":"Zihao Liu,Hu Li,Ling Tian","doi":"10.1111/1471-0528.70053","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.70053","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":8984,"journal":{"name":"BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145209193","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Eric O. Ohuma, Bancy Ngatia, Simon Parker, Sara Strout, Linda Vesel
ObjectiveThe Guidance for International Growth Standards (GIGS) project aims to improve and promote appropriate application of international growth standards across clinical, research and public health settings.DesignA guidance document providing historical and conceptual context to support the appropriate application of international growth standards.SettingGlobal; applicable across public health, clinical, research and epidemiological contexts where child growth monitoring is key.Population or SampleNeonates and children under 5 years.MethodsNarrative synthesis of key growth monitoring approaches, historical evolution of growth charts and a renewed call for a standardised assessment of child growth using a suite of international standards.Main Outcome MeasuresNot applicable. This paper does not report original outcomes, but highlights intended use and application of growth standards.ResultsPresents a historical overview of growth chart development, clarifies distinctions between descriptive, prescriptive and customised standards and introduces the rationale and a suite of statistical tools provided by the GIGS project. The paper presents insights from three companion papers, providing a structured guide to growth standard application.ConclusionsThe appropriate and correct application of international growth standards offers the opportunity to improve early identification of at‐risk infants and children and reduce global disparities in child health outcomes. The GIGS project provides a structured framework and set of tools to operationalise these standards, supporting consistent application across diverse settings and facilitating progress towards global child health goals.
{"title":"Neonatal and Child Growth Monitoring: A Renewed Call for Uptake and Application of International Growth Standards","authors":"Eric O. Ohuma, Bancy Ngatia, Simon Parker, Sara Strout, Linda Vesel","doi":"10.1111/1471-0528.70039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.70039","url":null,"abstract":"ObjectiveThe Guidance for International Growth Standards (GIGS) project aims to improve and promote appropriate application of international growth standards across clinical, research and public health settings.DesignA guidance document providing historical and conceptual context to support the appropriate application of international growth standards.SettingGlobal; applicable across public health, clinical, research and epidemiological contexts where child growth monitoring is key.Population or SampleNeonates and children under 5 years.MethodsNarrative synthesis of key growth monitoring approaches, historical evolution of growth charts and a renewed call for a standardised assessment of child growth using a suite of international standards.Main Outcome MeasuresNot applicable. This paper does not report original outcomes, but highlights intended use and application of growth standards.ResultsPresents a historical overview of growth chart development, clarifies distinctions between descriptive, prescriptive and customised standards and introduces the rationale and a suite of statistical tools provided by the GIGS project. The paper presents insights from three companion papers, providing a structured guide to growth standard application.ConclusionsThe appropriate and correct application of international growth standards offers the opportunity to improve early identification of at‐risk infants and children and reduce global disparities in child health outcomes. The GIGS project provides a structured framework and set of tools to operationalise these standards, supporting consistent application across diverse settings and facilitating progress towards global child health goals.","PeriodicalId":8984,"journal":{"name":"BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145203257","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Methodological Concerns in the Analysis of Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities in Postpartum Haemorrhage","authors":"Zhiyu Dong, Limin Chen, XingFen Lu, Fang Zhang","doi":"10.1111/1471-0528.70034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.70034","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":8984,"journal":{"name":"BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145203503","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：