Eita Goto1. 1. Department of Medicine and Public Health, Mizawa Hospital, , Hamamatsu, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A highly sensitive and simple screening procedure is required for early detection of low birthweight and small for gestational age, especially in developing countries. METHODS: A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate use of symphysis-fundal height for prediction of low birthweight and small for gestational age. PubMed (MEDLINE) and other databases were used with no limitation on the date of publication (January 2012). The inclusion criteria were moderate-to-high-quality studies, that is, Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) score ≥8, published in English, which provided true and false, positive and negative results for prediction. 2×2 tables were constructed and diagnostic meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: 46 studies, which were conducted mostly in hospitals, evaluated the prediction of low birthweight (n=12) or small for gestational age (n=34). Only specificity to predict small for gestational age (0.87) was relatively high. Sensitivity to predict low birthweight (0.72) or small for gestational age (0.58) and specificity to predict low birthweight (0.73) were not sufficiently high. Regardless of predicting low birthweight or small for gestational age, the diagnostic accuracy was moderate (0.7≤ area under the curve≤0.9) and informational value was small (but sometimes important; positive and negative likelihood ratios of 2-5 and 0.5-0.2, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis suggested that symphysis-fundal height is unsuitable for primary screening of low birthweight or small for gestational age. The results may be overly optimistic due to the inclusion of hospital-based versus community-based studies.
BACKGROUND: A highly sensitive and simple screening procedure is required for early detection of low birthweight and small for gestational age, especially in developing countries. METHODS: A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate use of symphysis-fundal height for prediction of low birthweight and small for gestational age. PubMed (MEDLINE) and other databases were used with no limitation on the date of publication (January 2012). The inclusion criteria were moderate-to-high-quality studies, that is, Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) score ≥8, published in English, which provided true and false, positive and negative results for prediction. 2×2 tables were constructed and diagnostic meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: 46 studies, which were conducted mostly in hospitals, evaluated the prediction of low birthweight (n=12) or small for gestational age (n=34). Only specificity to predict small for gestational age (0.87) was relatively high. Sensitivity to predict low birthweight (0.72) or small for gestational age (0.58) and specificity to predict low birthweight (0.73) were not sufficiently high. Regardless of predicting low birthweight or small for gestational age, the diagnostic accuracy was moderate (0.7≤ area under the curve≤0.9) and informational value was small (but sometimes important; positive and negative likelihood ratios of 2-5 and 0.5-0.2, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis suggested that symphysis-fundal height is unsuitable for primary screening of low birthweight or small for gestational age. The results may be overly optimistic due to the inclusion of hospital-based versus community-based studies.
Keywords:
Birth Weight; Meta Analysis; Neonatal; Obstetrics; Screening
Authors: Nir Melamed; Ahmet Baschat; Yoav Yinon; Apostolos Athanasiadis; Federico Mecacci; Francesc Figueras; Vincenzo Berghella; Amala Nazareth; Muna Tahlak; H David McIntyre; Fabrício Da Silva Costa; Anne B Kihara; Eran Hadar; Fionnuala McAuliffe; Mark Hanson; Ronald C Ma; Rachel Gooden; Eyal Sheiner; Anil Kapur; Hema Divakar; Diogo Ayres-de-Campos; Liran Hiersch; Liona C Poon; John Kingdom; Roberto Romero; Moshe Hod Journal: Int J Gynaecol Obstet Date: 2021-03 Impact factor: 3.561
Authors: Lisa Stroux; Christopher W Redman; Antoniya Georgieva; Stephen J Payne; Gari D Clifford Journal: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Date: 2017-09-27 Impact factor: 3.636
Authors: Fernando Althabe; Mabel Berrueta; Jennifer Hemingway-Foday; Agustina Mazzoni; Carolina Astoul Bonorino; Andrea Gowdak; Luz Gibbons; M B Bellad; M C Metgud; Shivaprasad Goudar; Bhalchandra S Kodkany; Richard J Derman; Sarah Saleem; Samina Iqbal; Syed Hasan Ala; Robert L Goldenberg; Elwyn Chomba; Albert Manasyan; Melody Chiwila; Edna Imenda; Florence Mbewe; Antoinette Tshefu; Victor Lokomba; Carl L Bose; Janet Moore; Sreelatha Meleth; Elizabeth M McClure; Marion Koso-Thomas; Pierre Buekens; José M Belizán Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Teresa M MacDonald; Chuong Tran; Tu'uhevaha J Kaitu'u-Lino; Shaun P Brennecke; Richard J Hiscock; Lisa Hui; Kirsten M Dane; Anna L Middleton; Ping Cannon; Susan P Walker; Stephen Tong Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2018-08-31 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: Malia Sq Murphy; Steven Hawken; Wei Cheng; Lindsay A Wilson; Monica Lamoureux; Matthew Henderson; Jesmin Pervin; Azad Chowdhury; Courtney Gravett; Eve Lackritz; Beth K Potter; Mark Walker; Julian Little; Anisur Rahman; Pranesh Chakraborty; Kumanan Wilson Journal: Elife Date: 2019-03-19 Impact factor: 8.140
Authors: Aris T Papageorghiou; Eric O Ohuma; Michael G Gravett; Jane Hirst; Mariangela F da Silveira; Ann Lambert; Maria Carvalho; Yasmin A Jaffer; Douglas G Altman; Julia A Noble; Enrico Bertino; Manorama Purwar; Ruyan Pang; Leila Cheikh Ismail; Cesar Victora; Zulfiqar A Bhutta; Stephen H Kennedy; José Villar Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-11-07