Cited by 28Pregnancy and preeclampsia studiesPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsBirth, Development, and Health

Systematic review on first trimester three‐dimensional placental volumetry predicting small for gestational age infants

Farina, Antonio·2016·Prenatal Diagnosis

Abstract

Objective: A systematic review and pooled analysis was carried out to estimate (i) the reference values and (ii) the potential value of measuring the first‐trimester 3D‐placental volume (PV) for predicting small for gestational age (SGA) infants. Method: A comprehensive literature search for relevant studies was conducted using the PubMed and Web of Knowledge databases. A simulation model was generated to calculate the detection rate (DR) of the PV for SGA infants. A random variable was generated having the same number of cases, and the same means and standard deviation as those reported in the articles considered for the analysis. Results: For the evaluation of the normal values of PV, 12 studies met the inclusion criteria. Four also produced an equation for PV estimation at 11 to 14 weeks. The weighted mean PV [±standard error of mean (SEM)] of 7519 cases was 59.40 ± 1.533 mL. For the estimation of PV performance in predicting SGA, five studies were included. The DR of the PV was 24.7% (19.3–30.1) at a 10% false–positive rate. Conclusion: The mean PV estimation of the studies analyzed was burdened by a high degree of heterogeneity. Instead, discordant results were reported for the possible prediction of SGA infants using PV. Surprisingly, just two articles reported the DR for SGA infants and also had proper statistical power. The discriminatory ability of using PV alone for predicting SGA appears to be modest, but could successfully be integrated into a multivariable screening method for SGA infants. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pd.4754

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Farina, A.
Affiliations
University of Bologna (IT)
Corresponding author
Farina, Antonio
Venue
Prenatal Diagnosis
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-01-19
Volume
36
Issue
2
Pages
135-141
ISSN
  • 0197-3851 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0223
OpenAlex
W2188503772
Cited by
28
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3
FWCI
0.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Prenatal Diagnosis (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Pregnancy and preeclampsia studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Birth, Development, and Health
Keywords
placental volume, small for gestational age, first trimester, reference values, fetal growth restriction prediction, detection rate, prenatal screening
MeSH terms
Female, Fetal Growth Retardation, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Infant, Small for Gestational Age, Organ Size, Placenta, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, First, Ultrasonography, Prenatal, Imaging, Three-Dimensional

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review