Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22696366›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2012

Regimens of fetal surveillance for impaired fetal growth.

Rosalie M Grivell, Lufee Wong, Vineesh Bhatia

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Antenatal cardiotocography for fetal assessment.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Early onset fetal growth restriction.Maternal health, neonatology and perinatology · 2017
    Review
  13. Preventing deaths due to the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.Best practice & research. Clinical obstetrics & gynaecology · 2016
    Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Rosalie M GrivellDiscipline of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The University of Adelaide, Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Adelaide, Australia. rosalie.grivell@adelaide.edu.au
Lufee Wong
Vineesh Bhatia

Funding

Department of Health 10/4001/02Department of Health SRP/10/4001/02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPolicies and protocols for fetal surveillance in the pregnancy where impaired fetal growth is suspected vary widely, with numerous combinations of different surveillance methods.

objectivesTo assess the effects of antenatal fetal surveillance regimens on important perinatal and maternal outcomes. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (29 February 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing the effects of described antenatal fetal surveillance regimens. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors R Grivell and L Wong independently assessed trial eligibility and quality and extracted data. MAIN

resultsWe included one trial of 167 women and their babies. This trial was a pilot study recruiting alongside another study, therefore, a separate sample size was not calculated. The trial compared a twice-weekly surveillance regimen (biophysical profile, nonstress tests, umbilical artery and middle cerebral artery Doppler and uterine artery Doppler) with the same regimen applied fortnightly (both groups had growth assessed fortnightly). There were insufficient data to assess this review's primary infant outcome of composite perinatal mortality and serious morbidity (although there were no perinatal deaths) and no difference was seen in the primary maternal outcome of emergency caesarean section for fetal distress (risk ratio (RR) 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35 to 2.63). In keeping with the more frequent monitoring, mean gestational age at birth was four days less for the twice-weekly surveillance group compared with the fortnightly surveillance group (mean difference (MD) -4.00; 95% CI -7.79 to -0.21). Women in the twice-weekly surveillance group were 25% more likely to have induction of labour than those in the fortnightly surveillance group (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.50). AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is limited evidence from randomised controlled trials to inform best practice for fetal surveillance regimens when caring for women with pregnancies affected by impaired fetal growth. More studies are needed to evaluate the effects of currently used fetal surveillance regimens in impaired fetal growth.

Indexed as

FemaleFetal Growth RetardationFetal MonitoringHumansMiddle Cerebral ArteryPilot ProjectsPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUltrasonography, PrenatalUmbilical Arteries

Identifiers

PMID22696366
PMCPMC6465035

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.