在低风险妇女中检测小胎龄胎儿的定制与标准基底高度测量(CORE研究):一项随机对照试验。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics Pub Date : 2024-12-22 DOI:10.1002/ijgo.16107
Farhat Ul Ain Ahmed, Sharoon Hanook, Fatima Ismail, Fatima Shah, Maaz Arsalan, Maria F Lopez Garcia-Tinajero, Judit Martinez-Egea, Francesc Figueras
{"title":"在低风险妇女中检测小胎龄胎儿的定制与标准基底高度测量(CORE研究):一项随机对照试验。","authors":"Farhat Ul Ain Ahmed, Sharoon Hanook, Fatima Ismail, Fatima Shah, Maaz Arsalan, Maria F Lopez Garcia-Tinajero, Judit Martinez-Egea, Francesc Figueras","doi":"10.1002/ijgo.16107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the proportion of small-for-gestational age (SGA) infants detected by routine care versus a growth assessment protocol using customized fundal-height charts in low-risk pregnancies of a developing country.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An open label randomized controlled trial was conducted at the Fatima Memorial Hospital (NUR International University, Pakistan). Low-risk pregnant women were randomly allocated to routine care (Mcdonald's rule for fundal height measurements followed by referral for scan with discrepancy of 3 cm from gestational age and a contingency third trimester scan) or the growth assessment protocol (GAP) developed by the Perinatal Institute (UK), which consists of the use of gestation-related optimal weight (GROW) customized charts, alongside management protocols for suspected SGA fetuses, audit tools and training. The primary prespecified outcome was the detection of SGA (defined as a birthweight <10th centile).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 2535 eligible women, 1884 (74%) were randomized (942 to standard care and 942 to GAP). After loss-to-follow-up, 1755 women were analyzed (874 in the standard measurement group and 881 in the GAP group). The detection rate of SGA infants was higher in the GAP group (83.2% [95% CI: 74.4%-89.9%] vs. 29% [95% CI: 20.4%-38.9%], P < 0.001), at the cost of an increased false positive rate (10.4% [95% CI: 8.3%-12.7%] vs. 1.4% [95% CI: 0.7%-2.5%], P < 0.001). The diagnostic odds ratio (positive likelihood ratio/negative likelihood ratio) was 42.6 (95% CI: 24.1-75.4) in the GAP group and 28.3 (95% CI:13.6-59.1) in the standard care group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In low-risk pregnant women of a developing country, a growth assessment protocol based on customized fundal-height charts is superior to standard measurements for the antenatal detection of SGA in newborns.</p>","PeriodicalId":14164,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"CustOmized versus standard fundal-height measuREments for the detection of small-for-gestational age fetuses in low-risk women (CORE study): A randomized controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Farhat Ul Ain Ahmed, Sharoon Hanook, Fatima Ismail, Fatima Shah, Maaz Arsalan, Maria F Lopez Garcia-Tinajero, Judit Martinez-Egea, Francesc Figueras\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ijgo.16107\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the proportion of small-for-gestational age (SGA) infants detected by routine care versus a growth assessment protocol using customized fundal-height charts in low-risk pregnancies of a developing country.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An open label randomized controlled trial was conducted at the Fatima Memorial Hospital (NUR International University, Pakistan). Low-risk pregnant women were randomly allocated to routine care (Mcdonald's rule for fundal height measurements followed by referral for scan with discrepancy of 3 cm from gestational age and a contingency third trimester scan) or the growth assessment protocol (GAP) developed by the Perinatal Institute (UK), which consists of the use of gestation-related optimal weight (GROW) customized charts, alongside management protocols for suspected SGA fetuses, audit tools and training. The primary prespecified outcome was the detection of SGA (defined as a birthweight <10th centile).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 2535 eligible women, 1884 (74%) were randomized (942 to standard care and 942 to GAP). After loss-to-follow-up, 1755 women were analyzed (874 in the standard measurement group and 881 in the GAP group). The detection rate of SGA infants was higher in the GAP group (83.2% [95% CI: 74.4%-89.9%] vs. 29% [95% CI: 20.4%-38.9%], P < 0.001), at the cost of an increased false positive rate (10.4% [95% CI: 8.3%-12.7%] vs. 1.4% [95% CI: 0.7%-2.5%], P < 0.001). The diagnostic odds ratio (positive likelihood ratio/negative likelihood ratio) was 42.6 (95% CI: 24.1-75.4) in the GAP group and 28.3 (95% CI:13.6-59.1) in the standard care group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In low-risk pregnant women of a developing country, a growth assessment protocol based on customized fundal-height charts is superior to standard measurements for the antenatal detection of SGA in newborns.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14164,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.16107\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.16107","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较发展中国家低风险妊娠中常规护理检测到的小胎龄婴儿(SGA)的比例与使用定制的基底高度图的生长评估方案的比例。方法:在法蒂玛纪念医院(巴基斯坦NUR国际大学)进行一项开放标签随机对照试验。低风险孕妇被随机分配到常规护理组(Mcdonald’s rule for basic height measurements,随后转诊进行与胎龄差距为3厘米的扫描和妊娠晚期的意外扫描)或由围产期研究所(围产期研究所)制定的生长评估方案(GAP),其中包括使用与妊娠相关的最佳体重(GROW)定制图表,以及疑似SGA胎儿的管理方案、审计工具和培训。预先指定的主要结局是SGA的检测(定义为出生体重)。结果:在2535名符合条件的妇女中,1884名(74%)被随机分配(942名接受标准治疗,942名接受GAP治疗)。随访后,对1755名妇女进行了分析(标准测量组874名,GAP组881名)。GAP组SGA婴儿的检出率更高(83.2% [95% CI: 74.4%-89.9%] vs. 29% [95% CI: 20.4%-38.9%], P结论:在发展中国家的低危孕妇中,基于定制的基底-身高图的生长评估方案优于产前检测新生儿SGA的标准测量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
CustOmized versus standard fundal-height measuREments for the detection of small-for-gestational age fetuses in low-risk women (CORE study): A randomized controlled trial.

Objective: To compare the proportion of small-for-gestational age (SGA) infants detected by routine care versus a growth assessment protocol using customized fundal-height charts in low-risk pregnancies of a developing country.

Methods: An open label randomized controlled trial was conducted at the Fatima Memorial Hospital (NUR International University, Pakistan). Low-risk pregnant women were randomly allocated to routine care (Mcdonald's rule for fundal height measurements followed by referral for scan with discrepancy of 3 cm from gestational age and a contingency third trimester scan) or the growth assessment protocol (GAP) developed by the Perinatal Institute (UK), which consists of the use of gestation-related optimal weight (GROW) customized charts, alongside management protocols for suspected SGA fetuses, audit tools and training. The primary prespecified outcome was the detection of SGA (defined as a birthweight <10th centile).

Results: Of the 2535 eligible women, 1884 (74%) were randomized (942 to standard care and 942 to GAP). After loss-to-follow-up, 1755 women were analyzed (874 in the standard measurement group and 881 in the GAP group). The detection rate of SGA infants was higher in the GAP group (83.2% [95% CI: 74.4%-89.9%] vs. 29% [95% CI: 20.4%-38.9%], P < 0.001), at the cost of an increased false positive rate (10.4% [95% CI: 8.3%-12.7%] vs. 1.4% [95% CI: 0.7%-2.5%], P < 0.001). The diagnostic odds ratio (positive likelihood ratio/negative likelihood ratio) was 42.6 (95% CI: 24.1-75.4) in the GAP group and 28.3 (95% CI:13.6-59.1) in the standard care group.

Conclusion: In low-risk pregnant women of a developing country, a growth assessment protocol based on customized fundal-height charts is superior to standard measurements for the antenatal detection of SGA in newborns.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
2.60%
发文量
493
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics publishes articles on all aspects of basic and clinical research in the fields of obstetrics and gynecology and related subjects, with emphasis on matters of worldwide interest.
期刊最新文献
Response: Comparing letters written by humans and ChatGPT: A preliminary study. Improved cervical screening using HPV type restriction and cycle threshold limit setting with the AmpFire assay: A prospective screening cohort of women with and without HIV in Botswana. Volume-based complete automation for ultrasound fetal biometry: A pilot approach to assess feasibility, reliability, and perspectives. Issue Information Gynecological surgery in patients with kidney failure on chronic kidney replacement therapy: A binational data linkage study of morbidity and mortality outcomes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1