Literature DB >> 26121659

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

Leanne Bricker1, Nancy Medley, Jeremy J Pratt.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic ultrasound is used selectively in late pregnancy where there are specific clinical indications. However, the value of routine late pregnancy ultrasound screening in unselected populations is controversial. The rationale for such screening would be the detection of clinical conditions which place the fetus or mother at high risk, which would not necessarily have been detected by other means such as clinical examination, and for which subsequent management would improve perinatal outcome.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects on obstetric practice and pregnancy outcome of routine late pregnancy ultrasound, defined as greater than 24 weeks' gestation, in women with either unselected or low-risk pregnancies. SEARCH
METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All acceptably controlled trials of routine ultrasound in late pregnancy (defined as after 24 weeks). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. MAIN
RESULTS: Thirteen trials recruiting 34,980 women were included in the systematic review. Risk of bias was low for allocation concealment and selective reporting, unclear for random sequence generation and incomplete outcome data and high for blinding of both outcome assessment and participants and personnel. There was no difference in antenatal, obstetric and neonatal outcome or morbidity in screened versus control groups. Routine late pregnancy ultrasound was not associated with improvements in overall perinatal mortality. There is little information on long-term substantive outcomes such as neurodevelopment. There is a lack of data on maternal psychological effects.Overall, the evidence for the primary outcomes of perinatal mortality, preterm birth less than 37 weeks, induction of labour and caesarean section were assessed to be of moderate or high quality with GRADE software. There was no association between ultrasound in late pregnancy and perinatal mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.54; participants = 30,675; studies = eight; I² = 29%), preterm birth less than 37 weeks (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.08; participants = 17,151; studies = two; I² = 0%), induction of labour (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; participants = 22,663; studies = six; I² = 78%), or caesarean section (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.15; participants = 27,461; studies = six; I² = 54%). Three additional primary outcomes chosen for the 'Summary of findings' table were preterm birth less than 34 weeks, maternal psychological effects and neurodevelopment at age two. Because none of the included studies reported these outcomes, they were not assessed for quality with GRADE software. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: Based on existing evidence, routine late pregnancy ultrasound in low-risk or unselected populations does not confer benefit on mother or baby. There was no difference in the primary outcomes of perinatal mortality, preterm birth less than 37 weeks, caesarean section rates, and induction of labour rates if ultrasound in late pregnancy was performed routinely versus not performed routinely. Meanwhile, data were lacking for the other primary outcomes: preterm birth less than 34 weeks, maternal psychological effects, and neurodevelopment at age two, reflecting a paucity of research covering these outcomes. These outcomes may warrant future research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26121659      PMCID: PMC7086401          DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001451.pub4

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


  54 in total

1.  ACOG Committee Opinion. Number 297, August 2004. Nonmedical use of obstetric ultrasonography.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 2.  Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in normal pregnancy.

Authors:  Zarko Alfirevic; Tamara Stampalija; Nancy Medley
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-04-15

Review 3.  Ultrasound screening for fetal abnormalities.

Authors:  L S Chitty
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 3.050

4.  Third trimester placental grading by ultrasonography as a test of fetal wellbeing.

Authors:  J Proud; A M Grant
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1987-06-27

5.  A randomized trial using ultrasound to identify the high-risk fetus in a low-risk population.

Authors:  Daniel McKenna; Suresh Tharmaratnam; Samina Mahsud; Carolyn Bailie; Ann Harper; James Dornan
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 7.661

6.  Ultrasound screening in pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  S H Eik-Nes; O Okland; J C Aure; M Ulstein
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1984-06-16       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Screening for small for dates fetuses: a controlled trial.

Authors:  J P Neilson; S P Munjanja; C R Whitfield
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1984-11-03

8.  Are prenatal ultrasound scans associated with the autism phenotype? Follow-up of a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Yonit K Stoch; Cori J Williams; Joanna Granich; Anna M Hunt; Lou I Landau; John P Newnham; Andrew J O Whitehouse
Journal:  J Autism Dev Disord       Date:  2012-12

9.  Ultrasound during pregnancy and subsequent childhood non-right handedness: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  K A Salvesen; S H Eik-Nes
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 7.299

10.  Routine ultrasonography in utero and subsequent vision and hearing at primary school age.

Authors:  K A Salvesen; L J Vatten; G Jacobsen; S H Eik-Nes; O Økland; K Molne; L S Bakketeig
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1992-07-01       Impact factor: 7.299

View more
  37 in total

1.  Universal late pregnancy ultrasound screening to predict adverse outcomes in nulliparous women: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Gordon Cs Smith; Alexandros A Moraitis; David Wastlund; Jim G Thornton; Aris Papageorghiou; Julia Sanders; Alexander Ep Heazell; Stephen C Robson; Ulla Sovio; Peter Brocklehurst; Edward Cf Wilson
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2021-02       Impact factor: 4.014

Review 2.  Fetal growth surveillance - Current guidelines, practices and challenges.

Authors:  Mandy Williams; Sue Turner; Emily Butler; Jason Gardosi
Journal:  Ultrasound       Date:  2018-03-22

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.  FIGO (international Federation of Gynecology and obstetrics) initiative on fetal growth: best practice advice for screening, diagnosis, and management of fetal growth restriction.

Authors:  Nir Melamed; Ahmet Baschat; Yoav Yinon; Apostolos Athanasiadis; Federico Mecacci; Francesc Figueras; Vincenzo Berghella; Amala Nazareth; Muna Tahlak; H David McIntyre; Fabrício Da Silva Costa; Anne B Kihara; Eran Hadar; Fionnuala McAuliffe; Mark Hanson; Ronald C Ma; Rachel Gooden; Eyal Sheiner; Anil Kapur; Hema Divakar; Diogo Ayres-de-Campos; Liran Hiersch; Liona C Poon; John Kingdom; Roberto Romero; Moshe Hod
Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet       Date:  2021-03       Impact factor: 3.561

5.  A systematic scoping review to identify the design and assess the performance of devices for antenatal continuous fetal monitoring.

Authors:  Kajal K Tamber; Dexter J L Hayes; Stephen J Carey; Jayawan H B Wijekoon; Alexander E P Heazell
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-12-01       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Should serial fetal biometry be used in all pregnancies?

Authors:  Roberto Romero; Russell Deter
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2015-09-07       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Screening for fetal growth restriction using ultrasound and the sFLT1/PlGF ratio in nulliparous women: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Francesca Gaccioli; Ulla Sovio; Emma Cook; Martin Hund; D Stephen Charnock-Jones; Gordon C S Smith
Journal:  Lancet Child Adolesc Health       Date:  2018-06-19

8.  Routine antenatal ultrasound in low- and middle-income countries: first look - a cluster randomised trial.

Authors:  R L Goldenberg; R O Nathan; D Swanson; S Saleem; W Mirza; F Esamai; D Muyodi; A L Garces; L Figueroa; E Chomba; M Chiwala; M Mwenechanya; A Tshefu; A Lokangako; V L Bolamba; J L Moore; H Franklin; J Swanson; E A Liechty; C L Bose; N F Krebs; K Michael Hambidge; W A Carlo; N Kanaiza; F Naqvi; I S Pineda; W López-Gomez; D Hamsumonde; M S Harrison; M Koso-Thomas; M Miodovnik; D D Wallace; E M McClure
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2018-06-15       Impact factor: 6.531

9.  The Impact of Kidney Development on the Life Course: A Consensus Document for Action.

Authors: 
Journal:  Nephron       Date:  2017-03-21       Impact factor: 2.847

10.  Combination of Fundal Height and Ultrasound to Predict Small for Gestational Age at Birth.

Authors:  Katherine L Grantz; Ana M Ortega-Villa; Sarah J Pugh; Alaina Bever; William Grobman; Roger B Newman; John Owen; Deborah A Wing; Paul S Albert
Journal:  Am J Perinatol       Date:  2021-05-03       Impact factor: 1.862

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.