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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Birth weight in relation to morbidity and mortality among newborn infants
McIntire, D. D., Bloom, S. L., Casey, B. M., & Leveno, K. J. (1999) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199904223401603 · Cited by 1,258
Major risk factors for stillbirth in high-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Flenady, V., Koopmans, L., Middleton, P., Frøen, J. F., Smith, G. C., Gibbons, K., Coory, M., Gordon, A., Ellwood, D., McIntyre, H. D., et al. (2011) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(10)62233-7 · Cited by 1,247
Maternal and fetal risk factors for stillbirth: population based study
Gardosi, J., Madurasinghe, V., Williams, M., Malik, A., & Francis, A. (2013) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.f108 · Cited by 941
The preterm birth syndrome: issues to consider in creating a classification system
Goldenberg, R. L., Gravett, M. G., Iams, J., Papageorghiou, A. T., Waller, S. A., Kramer, M., Culhane, J., Barros, F., Conde-Agudelo, A., Bhutta, Z. A., et al. (2012) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2011.10.865 · Cited by 235
Risk of stillbirth after 37 weeks in pregnancies complicated by small-for-gestational-age fetuses
Trudell, A. S., Cahill, A. G., Tuuli, M. G., Macones, G. A., & Odibo, A. O. (2013) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2013.02.030 · Cited by 95
Kean, L. H., & Liu, D. T. Y. (1996) · Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology · doi:10.3109/01443619609007744 · Cited by 65
Cited by
ISUOG Practice Guidelines: ultrasound assessment of fetal biometry and growth
Salomon, L. J., Alfirevic, Z., Da Silva Costa, F., Deter, R. L., Figueras, F., Ghi, T., Glanc, P., Khalil, A., Lee, W., Napolitano, R., et al. (2019) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.20272 · Cited by 704
Development of the human placenta
Turco, M. Y., & Moffett, A. (2019) · Development · doi:10.1242/dev.163428 · Cited by 698
Stillbirths: recall to action in high-income countries
Flenady, V., Wojcieszek, A. M., Middleton, P., Ellwood, D., Erwich, J. J., Coory, M., Khong, T. Y., Silver, R. M., Smith, G. C. S., Boyle, F. M., et al. (2016) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(15)01020-x · Cited by 667
Self-citationMadden, J. V., Flatley, C. J., & Kumar, S. (2018) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2018.02.008 · Cited by 133
Deter, R. L., Lee, W., Yeo, L., Erez, O., Ramamurthy, U., Naik, M., & Romero, R. (2018) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2017.12.210 · Cited by 80
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.