Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 177

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Poor effectiveness of antenatal detection of fetal growth restriction and consequences for obstetric management and neonatal outcomes: a French national study

Open access
Monier, I, Blondel, B, Ego, A, Kaminiski, M, Goffinet, F, Zeitlin, J·2015·BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology

Abstract

Objective: To assess the proportion of small for gestational age (SGA) and normal birthweight infants suspected of fetal growth restriction (FGR) during pregnancy, and to investigate obstetric and neonatal outcomes by suspicion of FGR and SGA status at birth. Design: Population‐based study. Setting: All French maternity units in 2010. Population: Representative sample of singleton births (n = 14 100). Methods: We compared SGA infants with a birthweight of less than the 10th percentile suspected of FGR, defined as mention of FGR in medical charts (true positives), non‐SGA infants suspected of FGR (false positives), SGA infants without suspicion of FGR (false negatives) and non‐SGA infants without suspicion of FGR (true negatives). Multivariable analyses were adjusted for maternal and neonatal characteristics hypothesised to affect closer surveillance for FGR and our outcomes. Main outcome measures: Obstetric management (caesarean, provider‐initiated preterm and early term delivery) and neonatal outcomes (late fetal death, preterm birth, Apgar score, resuscitation at birth). Results: 21.7% of SGA infants (n = 265) and 2.1% of non‐SGA infants (n = 271) were suspected of FGR during pregnancy. Compared with true negatives, provider‐initiated preterm deliveries were higher for true and false positives (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 6.1 [95% CI, 3.8–9.8] and 4.6 [95% CI, 3.2–6.7]), but not for false negatives (aRR, 1.1 [95% CI, 0.6–1.9]). Neonatal outcomes were not better for SGA infants if FGR was suspected. Conclusion: Antenatal suspicion of FGR among SGA infants was low and one‐half of infants suspected of FGR were not SGA. The increased risk of provider‐initiated delivery observed in non‐SGA infants suspected of FGR raises concerns about the iatrogenic consequences of screening.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1471-0528.13148

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 177

Metadata

Authors
Monier, I., Blondel, B., Ego, A., Kaminiski, M., Goffinet, F., & Zeitlin, J.
Venue
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-10-27
Volume
122
Issue
4
Pages
518-527
ISSN
  • 0306-5456 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-0328
  • 1471-0528
OpenAlex
W1982714889
Cited by
177
References
6
FWCI
8.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Poor effectiveness of antenatal detection of fetal growth restriction and consequences for obstetric management and neonatal outcomes: a French national study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1471-0528.13148
The paper
Monier, I., Blondel, B., Ego, A., Kaminiski, M., Goffinet, F., & Zeitlin, J. (2015). Poor effectiveness of antenatal detection of fetal growth restriction and consequences for obstetric management and neonatal outcomes: a French national study. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13148

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.