Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10796263›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2000

Routine ultrasound in late pregnancy (after 24 weeks gestation).

L Bricker, J P Neilson

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract 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. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

NCT01995968 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2013, after this paper: background citation

Antenatal Detection of Fetal Growth Restriction : Determinants and Consequences for Stillbirths Rate.

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorUniversity Hospital, GrenobleRan2013 to 2015Enrolled480ConditionsStillbirth, Intrauterine Growth Retardation, Infant, Small for Gestational AgeArmsAntenatal identification of fetal growth restriction
NCT02713568 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

Estimation of Fetal Weight by MR Imaging to PREdict Neonatal MACROsomia (PREMACRO Study)

TypeinterventionalSponsorBrugmann University HospitalRan2016 to 2020Enrolled2,413ConditionsFetal MacrosomiaArmsUltrasound examination, Magnetic resonance examination
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Routine ultrasound in late pregnancy (after 24 weeks' gestation).The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Delivery settings and caesarean section rates in China.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2007
    Article
  6. Seeing baby: women's experience of prenatal ultrasound examination and unexpected fetal diagnosis.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2006
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Continuing medical education in Brazil: what about obstetricians and gynecologists?Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina · 2005
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution 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
University of Liverpool · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiagnostic ultrasound is used selectively in late pregnancy where there are specific clinical indications. However, the value of routine late pregnancy ultrasound screening in unselected populations is controversial. The rationale for such screening would be the detection of clinical conditions which place the fetus or mother at high risk, which would not necessarily have been detected by other means such as clinical examination, and for which subsequent management would improve perinatal outcome.

objectivesTo assess the effects on obstetric practice and pregnancy outcome of routine late pregnancy ultrasound, defined as greater than 24 weeks gestation, in women with either unselected or low risk pregnancies. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: All acceptably controlled trials of routine ultrasound in late pregnancy (defined as after 24 weeks). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The principal reviewer assessed trial quality and extracted data, under supervision of the co-reviewer. MAIN

resultsSeven trials recruiting 25,036 women were included. The quality of trials overall was satisfactory. There was no difference in antenatal, obstetric and neonatal intervention or morbidity in screened versus control groups. Routine late pregnancy ultrasound was not associated with improvements in overall perinatal mortality. Placental grading as an adjunct to third trimester examination scan was associated with a significant reduction in the stillbirth rate in the one trial that assessed it. There is a lack of data with regard to long term substantive outcomes such as neurodevelopment. There is a lack of data on maternal psychological effects. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsBased on existing evidence, routine late pregnancy ultrasound in low risk or unselected populations does not confer benefit on mother or baby. There is a lack of data about the potential psychological effects of routine ultrasound in late pregnancy, and the effects on both short and long term neonatal and childhood outcome. Placental grading in the third trimester may be valuable, but whether reported results are reproducible remains to be seen, and future research of late pregnancy ultrasound should include evaluation of placental textural assessment.

Indexed as

Ultrasonography, PrenatalFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnancy Trimester, SecondPregnancy Trimester, Third

Identifiers

PMID10796263
OpenAlexW4246469425

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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 OpenQuestion graph.