Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35936964›Full record

ReviewUltrasound (Leeds, England)2022

Systematic review evaluating the efficacy of the cerebroplacental ratio (CPR) in saving babies lives.

Catherine Elmes, Rita Phillips

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ultrasound (Leeds, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Catherine ElmesRoyal United Hospital Foundation Trust Bath, Combe Park, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1310-2930
Rita PhillipsHAS Allied Health Professions, University of the West of England Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this systematic review is to critically assess the efficacy of the cerebroplacental ratio performed in the third trimester at predicting adverse perinatal outcomes and reducing stillbirth rates. Method: The literature search was performed using CINAHL, EMBASE, EMCARE, MEDLINE and PubMed including systematic reviews, retrospective and prospective studies from inception until July 2020 utilising the PRISMA checklist and flowchart. Data displaying sensitivities, specificity and odds ratios (OR) to include 95% confidence interval (CI) were extracted and synthesised. Findings: Initially, 1226 studies were identified, and nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Sample sizes ranged from 491 to 9772 pregnancies. The cerebroplacental ratio had the strongest diagnostic accuracy of all of the independent variables for detecting fetal demise (mean sensitivity and specificity; 79% and 78%). The cerebroplacental ratio, however, did not perform as favourably at predicting operative delivery (mean sensitivity and specificity; 59% and 82%) or anticipating admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (mean sensitivity and specificity; 55% and 74%). Discussion: The results from this study showed that the cerebroplacental ratio within third trimester pregnancies has been proven to have moderate to high diagnostic value when detecting adverse perinatal outcomes, in particular fetal demise. Conclusion: Cerebroplacental ratio has the potential as a diagnostic tool to reduce adverse perinatal outcomes, in particular fetal demise and help reduce stillbirth rates. The main study limitation involved heterogeneity within the included studies, in particular with a regard to blinding.

Indexed as

cerebroplacental ratioDopplerobstetric ultrasoundthird trimesterUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID35936964
PMCPMC9354181

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.