SynthesisBMC pregnancy and childbirth2026
Predictive models for adverse pregnancy outcomes in fetal growth restriction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe aim to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the performance of existing predictive models for adverse pregnancy outcomes in pregnancies with fetal growth restriction from multiple perspectives.
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CNKI up to January 2025 to identify studies on the development, validation, or updating of clinical prediction models for adverse pregnancy outcomes in fetal growth restriction. Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction Model Study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Subgroup analyses were based on study design, country income level, predictor types, and outcome categories. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis.
resultsA systematic literature search identified 40 studies describing predictive models for adverse pregnancy outcomes in the context of fetal growth restriction. Of these, 26 studies were ultimately included in the meta-analysis based on diagnostic criteria for FGR and risk assessment methodologies. Meta-analysis showed pooled AUCs of 0.823 (95% CI: 0.767–0.868; I² = 52.52%) for early-onset FGR, 0.749 (95% CI: 0.671–0.813; I² = 92.78%) for late-onset FGR, and 0.791 (95% CI: 0.714–0.852; I² = 84.09%) for studies without onset differentiation. Models using multiple predictors consistently outperformed single-predictor models (AUC: 0.758 vs. 0.743; 0.845 vs. 0.746) in the late-onset FGR and FGR groups. We also demonstrated models with different predictor sets for composite adverse pregnancy outcomes. Incorporating Doppler indices, biochemical markers, or maternal clinical factors into models based on estimated fetal weight may moderately enhance overall predictive performance.
conclusionsOur study demonstrates that integrating Doppler parameters, biochemical markers, or maternal clinical factors into models based on estimated fetal weight may moderately improve overall predictive performance for composite adverse pregnancy outcomes with FGR. However, few have undergone rigorous internal or external validation; therefore, their clinical application warrants caution. Future research should focus on multi-center studies, improve existing thresholds, and explore new indicators. It is also necessary to combine machine learning and deep learning techniques to enhance model performance.
trial registrationPROSPERO registration number: CRD42025643903.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.