SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2007
WITHDRAWN: Routine Doppler ultrasound in pregnancy.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in high-risk pregnancies.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2010Pooled it
- Routine ultrasound in late pregnancy (after 24 weeks' gestation).The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2008Pooled it
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
- Update of
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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. AUTHORS'
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.