Predictive models for adverse pregnancy outcomes in fetal growth restriction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

We 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. A 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. A 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. Our 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. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42025643903.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Published
2026-03-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-026-08904-w
Primary Topic
Pregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Predictive models for adverse pregnancy outcomes in fetal growth restriction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Jinyang Hu, Jie Peng, Yingqi Fang, Wenzhuo Shen et al.
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Pregnancy and preeclampsia studies
article

Predictive models for adverse pregnancy outcomes in fetal growth restriction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Jinyang Hu, Jie Peng, Yingqi Fang, Wenzhuo Shen, Xuedong Deng, Linliang Yin
article en

Abstract

We 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. A 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. A 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. Our 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. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42025643903.

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Capital Medical University (CN), Wenzhou Medical University (CN), Suzhou Municipal Hospital (CN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 19%
Pregnancy and preeclampsia studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.