A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Fetal Weight Extrapolation Following a Third-Trimester Ultrasound Examination Using the Gestation-Adjusted Projection Method: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Using systematic review and meta-analysis methodology, we sought to evaluate the accuracy of the gestation-adjusted projection (GAP) method of fetal weight extrapolation in the prediction of actual birth weight.A systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies published from database inception to June 2023. Studies were compiled that assessed the accuracy of the GAP method in pregnant women at term (≥37 weeks gestation) with an ultrasound performed at 34 to 36 weeks gestation. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and risk of bias was assessed using the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the agreement between the GAP method and the actual birth weight using the mean percent error, mean absolute error, and mean absolute percent error. Means and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using and tau statistics.The search identified 949 records. After a full-text review, a total of eight studies with 5,306 subjects were included. Studies were retrospective and prospective cohort studies. All studies were deemed high quality and determined to have a low risk of bias. Five studies were performed in the United States, one in Italy, one in Spain, and one in the United Kingdom. Four studies included patients with pregestational or gestational diabetes and obesity. Due to substantial heterogeneity, the random-effects model was used to estimate the effects of studies. The mean percent error was 3.1% (95% CI: 1.1-5.2), the mean absolute error was 240 g (95% CI: 205-275 g), and the mean absolute percent error was 8.0% (95% CI: 6.9-9.1).The GAP method of fetal weight extrapolation is an accurate approach to birth weight prediction and is suitable for use in a diverse population. The study protocol was submitted for online registration in the International Register of Prospective Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) before the literature review was undertaken (registration number: CRD42023392977). · Estimation of fetal weight is useful for delivery planning.. · The GAP method uses third-trimester ultrasound data.. · The GAP method is an accurate approach to birth weight prediction..

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-2628-2364DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

gap method
24
fetal weight
16
percent error
16
weight extrapolation
12
risk bias
12
birth weight
12
studies
11
third-trimester ultrasound
8
gestation-adjusted projection
8
systematic review
8

Similar Publications