ReviewUltrasound (Leeds, England)2022
Systematic review evaluating the efficacy of the cerebroplacental ratio (CPR) in saving babies lives.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Peripartum fetal Doppler sonography and perinatal outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Pooled it
- Prenatal prediction of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome using uteroplacental Doppler and placental microvascular perfusion indices: development of a risk model.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Does gestational age influence the predictive accuracy of the cerebroplacental ratio for intrapartum fetal compromise?AJOG global reports · 2026Article
- Research progress of cerebroplacental ratio in obstetric complications.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Efficiency of the Cerebroplacental Ratio in Identifying High-Risk Late-Term Pregnancies.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.