Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10796262›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2000

Routine doppler ultrasound in pregnancy.

L Bricker, J P Neilson

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in high-risk pregnancies.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  2. Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in normal pregnancy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  3. Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in high-risk pregnancies.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  4. Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in normal pregnancy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2010
    Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. The impact of preeclampsia in pregnancy.Journal of prenatal medicine · 2011
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

L BrickerUniversity Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Liverpool Women's Hospital, Crown Street, Liverpool, UK, L8 7SS. lbricker@dial.pipex.com
J P Neilson
Liverpool Womens NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDoppler ultrasound study of umbilical artery waveforms helps identify the compromised fetus in 'high risk' pregnancies and, therefore, deserves assessment as a screening test in 'low risk' pregnancies. One of the main aims of routine antenatal care is to identify the 'at risk' fetus in order to apply clinical interventions which could result in reduced perinatal morbidity and mortality.

objectivesTo assess the effects on obstetric practice and pregnancy outcome of routine Doppler ultrasound in unselected and low risk pregnancies. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched. Date of last search: September 1999 SELECTION CRITERIA: Acceptably controlled trials of routine Doppler ultrasound (umbilical circulation and/or uterine circulation) in unselected or low risk pregnancies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Both reviewers assessed trial quality and extracted data. Authors of two trials were contacted for additional information. MAIN

resultsFive trials were included which recruited 14,338 women. The methodological quality of the trials was generally good. Based on existing evidence, routine Doppler ultrasound examination in low risk or unselected populations did not result in increased antenatal, obstetric and neonatal interventions, and no overall differences were detected for substantive short term clinical outcomes such as perinatal mortality. There is no available evidence to assess the effect on substantive long term outcomes such as childhood neurodevelopment. There is no available evidence to assess maternal outcomes, particularly psychological effects. In two studies there were unexpected findings suggesting possible harmful effects, but the explanation for this is not clear, and further evaluation regarding the safety of Doppler ultrasound is required. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsBased on existing evidence, routine Doppler ultrasound in low risk or unselected populations does not confer benefit on mother or baby. Future research should be powerful enough to address small changes in perinatal outcome, and should include evaluation of maternal psychological effects, long term outcomes such as neurodevelopment, and issues of safety.

Indexed as

Ultrasonography, DopplerUltrasonography, PrenatalFemaleHumansPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID10796262
OpenAlexW1910610216

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.