D Oros1,2, S Ruiz-Martinez1, E Staines-Urias3, A Conde-Agudelo4,5, J Villar3, E Fabre1, A T Papageorghiou3. 1. Aragón Institute of Health Research (IIS Aragón), Obstetrics Department, Hospital Clínico Universitario Lozano Blesa, Zaragoza, Spain. 2. Red de Salud Materno Infantil y del Desarrollo (SAMID), RETICS, Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII), Subdirección General de Evaluación y Fomento de la Investigación y Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER), Spain. 3. Nuffield Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Oxford Maternal and Perinatal Health Institute, Green Templeton College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 4. Perinatology Research Branch, Program for Perinatal Research and Obstetrics, Division of Intramural Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD and Detroit, MI, USA. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess studies reporting reference ranges for umbilical artery (UA) and fetal middle cerebral artery (MCA) Doppler indices and cerebroplacental ratio (CPR), using a set of predefined methodological quality criteria for study design, statistical analysis and reporting methods. METHODS: This was a systematic review of observational studies in which the primary aim was to create reference ranges for UA and MCA Doppler indices and CPR in fetuses of singleton gestations. A search for relevant articles was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science (from inception to 31 December 2016) and references of the retrieved articles. Two authors independently selected studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted the data. Studies were scored against a predefined set of independently agreed methodological criteria and an overall quality score was assigned to each study. Linear multiple regression analysis assessing the association between quality scores and study characteristics was performed. RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria. The highest potential for bias was noted in the following fields: 'ultrasound quality control measures', in which only two studies demonstrated a comprehensive quality-control strategy; 'number of measurements taken for each Doppler variable', which was apparent in only three studies; 'sonographer experience', in which no study on CPR reported clearly the experience or training of the sonographers, while only three studies on UA Doppler and four on MCA Doppler did; and 'blinding of measurements', in which only one study, on UA Doppler, reported that sonographers were blinded to the measurement recorded during the examination. Sample size estimations were present in only seven studies. No predictors of quality were found on multiple regression analysis. Reference ranges varied significantly with important clinical implications for what is considered normal or abnormal, even when restricting the analysis to the highest scoring studies. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable methodological heterogeneity in studies reporting reference ranges for UA and MCA Doppler indices and CPR, and the resulting references have important implications for clinical practice. There is a need for the standardization of methodologies for Doppler velocimetry and for the development of reference standards, which can be correctly interpreted and applied in clinical practice. We propose a set of recommendations for this purpose.
OBJECTIVE: To assess studies reporting reference ranges for umbilical artery (UA) and fetal middle cerebral artery (MCA) Doppler indices and cerebroplacental ratio (CPR), using a set of predefined methodological quality criteria for study design, statistical analysis and reporting methods. METHODS: This was a systematic review of observational studies in which the primary aim was to create reference ranges for UA and MCA Doppler indices and CPR in fetuses of singleton gestations. A search for relevant articles was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science (from inception to 31 December 2016) and references of the retrieved articles. Two authors independently selected studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted the data. Studies were scored against a predefined set of independently agreed methodological criteria and an overall quality score was assigned to each study. Linear multiple regression analysis assessing the association between quality scores and study characteristics was performed. RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria. The highest potential for bias was noted in the following fields: 'ultrasound quality control measures', in which only two studies demonstrated a comprehensive quality-control strategy; 'number of measurements taken for each Doppler variable', which was apparent in only three studies; 'sonographer experience', in which no study on CPR reported clearly the experience or training of the sonographers, while only three studies on UA Doppler and four on MCA Doppler did; and 'blinding of measurements', in which only one study, on UA Doppler, reported that sonographers were blinded to the measurement recorded during the examination. Sample size estimations were present in only seven studies. No predictors of quality were found on multiple regression analysis. Reference ranges varied significantly with important clinical implications for what is considered normal or abnormal, even when restricting the analysis to the highest scoring studies. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable methodological heterogeneity in studies reporting reference ranges for UA and MCA Doppler indices and CPR, and the resulting references have important implications for clinical practice. There is a need for the standardization of methodologies for Doppler velocimetry and for the development of reference standards, which can be correctly interpreted and applied in clinical practice. We propose a set of recommendations for this purpose.
Authors: Debra Paoletti; Lillian Smyth; Susan Westerway; Jon Hyett; Ritu Mogra; Stephen Haslett; Michael Peek Journal: Australas J Ultrasound Med Date: 2021-08-26
Authors: Efraim Zohav; Eyal Zohav; Mark Rabinovich; Ahmad Alasbah; Simon Shenhav; Hadar Sofer; Yaniv S Ovadia; Eyal Y Anteby; Leonti Grin Journal: Rambam Maimonides Med J Date: 2019-10-29
Authors: C A Vollgraff Heidweiller-Schreurs; I R van Osch; M W Heymans; W Ganzevoort; L J Schoonmade; C J Bax; Bwj Mol; Cjm de Groot; Pmm Bossuyt; M A de Boer Journal: BJOG Date: 2020-06-08 Impact factor: 7.331
Authors: Dakshita Jagota; Hannah George; Melissa Walker; Anjana Ravi Chandran; Natasha Milligan; Shiri Shinar; Clare L Whitehead; Sebastian R Hobson; Lena Serghides; W Tony Parks; Ahmet A Baschat; Christopher K Macgowan; John G Sled; John C Kingdom; Lindsay S Cahill Journal: Biol Sex Differ Date: 2021-03-10 Impact factor: 5.027
Authors: Sam Ali; Michael G Kawooya; Josaphat Byamugisha; Isaac M Kakibogo; Esther A Biira; Adia N Kagimu; Diederick E Grobbee; David Zakus; Aris T Papageorghiou; Kerstin Klipstein-Grobusch; Marcus J Rijken Journal: BJOG Date: 2022-02-24 Impact factor: 7.331