Literature DB >> 20393955

Ultrasound for fetal assessment in early pregnancy.

Melissa Whitworth1, Leanne Bricker, James P Neilson, Therese Dowswell.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic ultrasound is a sophisticated electronic technology, which utilises pulses of high frequency sound to produce an image. Diagnostic ultrasound examination may be employed in a variety of specific circumstances during pregnancy such as after clinical complications, or where there are concerns about fetal growth. Because adverse outcomes may also occur in pregnancies without clear risk factors, assumptions have been made that routine ultrasound in all pregnancies will prove beneficial by enabling earlier detection and improved management of pregnancy complications. Routine screening may be planned for early pregnancy, late gestation, or both. The focus of this review is routine early pregnancy ultrasound.
OBJECTIVES: To assess whether routine early pregnancy ultrasound for fetal assessment (i.e. its use as a screening technique) influences the diagnosis of fetal malformations, multiple pregnancies, the rate of clinical interventions, and the incidence of adverse fetal outcome when compared with the selective use of early pregnancy ultrasound (for specific indications). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (September 2009). SELECTION CRITERIA: Published, unpublished, and ongoing randomised controlled trials that compared outcomes in women who experienced routine versus selective early pregnancy ultrasound (i.e. less than 24 weeks' gestation). We have included quasi-randomised trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data for each included study. We used the Review Manager software to enter and analyse data. MAIN
RESULTS: Routine/revealed ultrasound versus selective ultrasound/concealed: 11 trials including 37505 women. Ultrasound for fetal assessment in early pregnancy reduces the failure to detect multiple pregnancy by 24 weeks' gestation (risk ratio (RR) 0.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 0.17). Routine scan is associated with a reduction in inductions of labour for 'post term' pregnancy (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.83). Routine scans do not seem to be associated with reductions in adverse outcomes for babies or in health service use by mothers and babies. Long-term follow up of children exposed to scan in utero does not indicate that scans have a detrimental effect on children's physical or cognitive development. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: Early ultrasound improves the early detection of multiple pregnancies and improved gestational dating may result in fewer inductions for post maturity. Caution needs to be exercised in interpreting the results of aspects of this review in view of the fact that there is considerable variability in both the timing and the number of scans women received.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20393955      PMCID: PMC4084925          DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007058.pub2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  56 in total

1.  Ultrasound dating at 12-14 or 15-20 weeks of gestation? A prospective cross-validation of established dating formulae in a population of in-vitro fertilized pregnancies randomized to early or late dating scan.

Authors:  S Saltvedt; H Almström; M Kublickas; M Reilly; L Valentin; C Grunewald
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 7.299

2.  Prenatal sonography--safe or sinister?

Authors:  N Paneth
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1998-07-04       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  Information, knowledge and expectations of the routine ultrasound scan.

Authors:  Joan G Lalor; Declan Devane
Journal:  Midwifery       Date:  2006-09-28       Impact factor: 2.372

4.  Routine ultrasound screening in pregnancy and the children's subsequent handedness.

Authors:  H Kieler; O Axelsson; B Haglund; S Nilsson; K A Salvesen
Journal:  Early Hum Dev       Date:  1998-01-09       Impact factor: 2.079

5.  A randomized controlled trial in a hospital population of ultrasound measurement screening for the small for dates baby.

Authors:  G B Duff
Journal:  Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  1993-11       Impact factor: 2.100

6.  Routine ultrasonography in utero and subsequent handedness and neurological development.

Authors:  K A Salvesen; L J Vatten; S H Eik-Nes; K Hugdahl; L S Bakketeig
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-07-17

7.  Routine obstetric ultrasound examinations in South Africa: cost and effect on perinatal outcome--a prospective randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  L T Geerts; E J Brand; G B Theron
Journal:  Br J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  1996-06

8.  Effect of prenatal ultrasound screening on perinatal outcome. RADIUS Study Group.

Authors:  B G Ewigman; J P Crane; F D Frigoletto; M L LeFevre; R P Bain; D McNellis
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1993-09-16       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Ultrasound screening and perinatal mortality: controlled trial of systematic one-stage screening in pregnancy. The Helsinki Ultrasound Trial.

Authors:  A Saari-Kemppainen; O Karjalainen; P Ylöstalo; O P Heinonen
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1990-08-18       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Routine ultrasonography in utero and subsequent growth during childhood.

Authors:  K A Salvesen; G Jacobsen; L J Vatten; S H Eik-Nes; L S Bakketeig
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1993-01-01       Impact factor: 7.299

View more
  35 in total

Review 1.  Reducing stillbirths: screening and monitoring during pregnancy and labour.

Authors:  Rachel A Haws; Mohammad Yawar Yakoob; Tanya Soomro; Esme V Menezes; Gary L Darmstadt; Zulfiqar A Bhutta
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2009-05-07       Impact factor: 3.007

2.  The Performance of First-Trimester Anatomy Scan: A Decision Analysis.

Authors:  Lorie M Harper; S Lindsay Wood; Sheri M Jenkins; John Owen; Joseph R Biggio
Journal:  Am J Perinatol       Date:  2016-04-22       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 3.  Does the use of diagnostic technology reduce fetal mortality?

Authors:  Haywood L Brown
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2018-12-26       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  Ultrasonic imaging: safety considerations.

Authors:  Gail Ter Haar
Journal:  Interface Focus       Date:  2011-05-25       Impact factor: 3.906

5.  Advances in ultrasound imaging for congenital malformations during early gestation.

Authors:  William F Rayburn; Jennifer A Jolley; Lynn L Simpson
Journal:  Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol       Date:  2015-03-28

6.  Perception of pregnant women about antenatal care in a cottage hospital in Port Harcourt, Nigeria.

Authors:  M I Ekott; U Ovwigho; A Ehigiegba; A Fajola; B Fakunle
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2013-04

Review 7.  Routine ultrasound in late pregnancy (after 24 weeks' gestation).

Authors:  Leanne Bricker; Nancy Medley; Jeremy J Pratt
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-06-29

Review 8.  Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term.

Authors:  A Metin Gülmezoglu; Caroline A Crowther; Philippa Middleton; Emer Heatley
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2012-06-13

9.  Evaluation of prenatal diagnosis of congenital anomalies diagnosable by prenatal ultrasound in patients in neonatal intensive care units of Cali, Colombia.

Authors:  Wilmar Saldarriaga-Gil; Fabián Andrés Ruiz-Murcia; Andrés Fandiño-Losada; Manuel Enrique Cruz-Perea; Carolina Isaza de Lourido
Journal:  Colomb Med (Cali)       Date:  2014-03-30

10.  Mice exposed to diagnostic ultrasound in utero are less social and more active in social situations relative to controls.

Authors:  Abbi M McClintic; Bryan H King; Sara J Webb; Pierre D Mourad
Journal:  Autism Res       Date:  2013-11-18       Impact factor: 5.216

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.