Reports from the NICHD Global Network’s Maternal and Newborn Health Registry: supplement introduction

Goldenberg, Robert L.; Goudar, Shivaprasad S.; Saleem, Sarah; Hibberd, Patricia L.; Tolosa, Jorge E.; Koso‐Thomas, Marion; McClure, Elizabeth M

doi:10.1186/s12978-020-01024-4

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The GN’s MNHR follows pregnant women in the catchment area of seven locations in six LMICs in rural sites in Guatemala and India (two sites: Nagpur and Belagavi), Pakistan, Kenya, Zambia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) from the time of antenatal care registration through labour and delivery and up to 6 weeks postpartum using standardised data collection forms completed by trained data collectors. Data quality has been monitored consistently since 2009,12–16 and since 2014, GA dating has improved with increased access to USG. USG was either part of routine antenatal care or occurred in GN studies using standardised protocols 17–20…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can the date of last menstrual period be trusted in the first trimester? Comparisons of gestational age measures from a prospective cohort study in six low-income to middle-income countries

Patel,

Bann,

Thorsten

et al. 2023

BMJ Open

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesWe examined gestational age (GA) estimates for live and still births, and prematurity rates based on last menstrual period (LMP) compared with ultrasonography (USG) among pregnant women at seven sites in six low-resource countries.DesignProspective cohort studySetting and participantsThis study included data from the Global Network’s population-based Maternal and Newborn Health Registry which follows pregnant women in six low-income and middle-income countries (Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guatemala, India, Kenya, Pakistan and Zambia). Participants in this analysis were 42 803 women, including their 43 230 babies, who registered for the study in their first trimester based on GA estimated either by LMP or USG and had a live or stillbirth with an estimated GA of 20–42 weeks.Outcome measuresGA was estimated in weeks and days based on LMP and/or USG. Prematurity was defined as GA of 20 weeks+0 days through 36 weeks+6 days, calculated by both USG and LMP.ResultsOverall, average GA varied ≤1 week between LMP and USG. Mean GA for live births by LMP was lower than by USG (adjusted mean difference (95% CI) = −0.23 (–0.29 to –0.17) weeks). Among stillbirths, a higher GA was estimated by LMP than USG (adjusted mean difference (95% CI)= 0.42 (0.11 to 0.72) weeks). Preterm birth rates for live births were significantly higher when dated by LMP (adjusted rate difference (95% CI)= 4.20 (3.56 to 4.85)). There was no significant difference in preterm birth rates for stillbirths.ConclusionThe small differences in GA for LMP versus USG in the Guatemalan and Indian sites suggest that LMP may be a useful alternative to USG for GA dating during the first trimester until availability of USG improves in those areas. Further research is needed to assess LMP for first-trimester GA dating in other regions with limited access to USG.Trial registration numberNCT01073475.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can the date of last menstrual period be trusted in the first trimester? Comparisons of gestational age measures from a prospective cohort study in six low-income to middle-income countries

Patel,

Bann,

Thorsten

et al. 2023

BMJ Open

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These rates, which range from 20 to 40 per 1000 births, are over 10 times greater than those reported in highresource environments. In low-income and middle-income countries, mostly in areas with limited resources, stillbirths account for about 98% of all births [3] . To tackle those issues, the world has already seen some form of it in medical practice today, sometimes called 'artificial womb', also called 'Ectogenesis'.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This new health technology provides hope of having a baby, who otherwise will never have due to biological limitations [4,5] . This may also address stillbirths which at present is ~2.7 million third-trimester stillbirths globally, the majority of which may be avoided while improving the survival rate of premature babies [3] . Ectogenesis has been postulated to reduce the mortality and morbidity ratio by providing ectogestation to extremely premature babies with the prevailing crucial care.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ectogenesis: understanding opportunities, implications, concerns, and ways forward

Okesanya,

Gacutno-Evardone,

Olaniyi

et al. 2024

International Journal of Surgery: Global Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ectogenesis is the practice of developing organisms in artificial settings, with applications that range from improving the outcomes of preterm babies to treating fertility issues. It was unveiled in 2017 and provides possibilities for both partial and full ectogenesis while sustaining fetal lambs with concepts like the biobag. Utilizing biobag artificial uteri, complete ectogenesis is the confinement of a woman’s pregnancy in an artificial womb from the inception of the embryonic stage to full gestation; while partial ectogenesis is the utilization of a biobag artificial uterus to continue gestation ex-utero. Ectogenesis may have advantages, but there are concerns about how it will affect children’s social and psychological development. It can benefit biological parenthood, newborn care, fetal therapy, maternal-fetal disputes, societal growth, reduce health risks, and alter cultural norms while promoting reproductive equity. Due to possible risks, rigorous research on human subjects is required before ectogenesis may be implemented. The paper seeks to provide a thorough study for society’s conversation and deliberation, examining its potential advantages as well as its technical, ethical, and regulatory elements.

show abstract

Reports from the NICHD Global Network’s Maternal and Newborn Health Registry: supplement introduction

Cited by 2 publications

References 23 publications

Can the date of last menstrual period be trusted in the first trimester? Comparisons of gestational age measures from a prospective cohort study in six low-income to middle-income countries

Can the date of last menstrual period be trusted in the first trimester? Comparisons of gestational age measures from a prospective cohort study in six low-income to middle-income countries

Ectogenesis: understanding opportunities, implications, concerns, and ways forward

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About