Joshua P Vogel1, Valerie Vannevel2, Gianna Robbers3, George Gwako4, Tina Lavin5,6, Abiodun Adanikin6, Tsakane Hlongwane2, Robert C Pattinson2, Zahida P Qureshi4, Olufemi T Oladapo6. 1. Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health Program, Burnet Institute, 85 Commercial Road, Melbourne, 3000, Australia. joshua.vogel@burnet.edu.au. 2. South African Medical Research Council/University of Pretoria Maternal and Infant Health Care Strategies Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Pretoria, Unit Private Bag X323 Arcadia, Pretoria, 0007, South Africa. 3. Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health Program, Burnet Institute, 85 Commercial Road, Melbourne, 3000, Australia. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya. 5. School of Population and Global Health, University of Western Australia, Hackett Drive, Crawley, Perth, Australia. 6. UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While Doppler ultrasound screening is beneficial for women with high-risk pregnancies, there is insufficient evidence on its benefits and harms in low- and unselected-risk pregnancies. This may be related to fewer events of abnormal Doppler flow, however the prevalence of absent or reversed end diastolic flow (AEDF or REDF) in such women is unknown. In this systematic review, we aimed to synthesise available data on the prevalence of AEDF or REDF. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL and Global Index Medicus with no date, setting or language restrictions. All randomized or non-randomized studies reporting AEDF or REDF prevalence based on Doppler assessment of umbilical arterial flow > 20 weeks' gestation were eligible. Two authors assessed eligibility and extracted data on primary (AEDF and REDF) and secondary (fetal, perinatal, and neonatal mortality, caesarean section) outcomes, with results presented descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 42 studies (18,282 women) were included. Thirty-six studies reported zero AEDF or REDF cases. However, 55 AEDF or REDF cases were identified from just six studies (prevalence 0.08% to 2.13%). Four of these studies were in unselected-risk women and five were conducted in high-income countries. There was limited evidence from low- and middle-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from largely observational studies in higher-income countries suggests that AEDF and REDF are rare among low- and unselected-risk pregnant women. There are insufficient data from lower-income countries and further research is required.
BACKGROUND: While Doppler ultrasound screening is beneficial for women with high-risk pregnancies, there is insufficient evidence on its benefits and harms in low- and unselected-risk pregnancies. This may be related to fewer events of abnormal Doppler flow, however the prevalence of absent or reversed end diastolic flow (AEDF or REDF) in such women is unknown. In this systematic review, we aimed to synthesise available data on the prevalence of AEDF or REDF. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL and Global Index Medicus with no date, setting or language restrictions. All randomized or non-randomized studies reporting AEDF or REDF prevalence based on Doppler assessment of umbilical arterial flow > 20 weeks' gestation were eligible. Two authors assessed eligibility and extracted data on primary (AEDF and REDF) and secondary (fetal, perinatal, and neonatal mortality, caesarean section) outcomes, with results presented descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 42 studies (18,282 women) were included. Thirty-six studies reported zero AEDF or REDF cases. However, 55 AEDF or REDF cases were identified from just six studies (prevalence 0.08% to 2.13%). Four of these studies were in unselected-risk women and five were conducted in high-income countries. There was limited evidence from low- and middle-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from largely observational studies in higher-income countries suggests that AEDF and REDF are rare among low- and unselected-risk pregnant women. There are insufficient data from lower-income countries and further research is required.
Authors: Joanne Katz; Anne Cc Lee; Naoko Kozuki; Joy E Lawn; Simon Cousens; Hannah Blencowe; Majid Ezzati; Zulfiqar A Bhutta; Tanya Marchant; Barbara A Willey; Linda Adair; Fernando Barros; Abdullah H Baqui; Parul Christian; Wafaie Fawzi; Rogelio Gonzalez; Jean Humphrey; Lieven Huybregts; Patrick Kolsteren; Aroonsri Mongkolchati; Luke C Mullany; Richard Ndyomugyenyi; Jyh Kae Nien; David Osrin; Dominique Roberfroid; Ayesha Sania; Christentze Schmiegelow; Mariangela F Silveira; James Tielsch; Anjana Vaidya; Sithembiso C Velaphi; Cesar G Victora; Deborah Watson-Jones; Robert E Black Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-06-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Lior Drukker; Eleonora Staines-Urias; José Villar; Fernando C Barros; Maria Carvalho; Shama Munim; Rose McGready; Francois Nosten; James A Berkley; Shane A Norris; Ricardo Uauy; Stephen H Kennedy; Aris T Papageorghiou Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2020-01-16 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Joy E Lawn; Hannah Blencowe; Peter Waiswa; Agbessi Amouzou; Colin Mathers; Dan Hogan; Vicki Flenady; J Frederik Frøen; Zeshan U Qureshi; Claire Calderwood; Suhail Shiekh; Fiorella Bianchi Jassir; Danzhen You; Elizabeth M McClure; Matthews Mathai; Simon Cousens Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Adeniyi Kolade Aderoba; Naima Nasir; Maria Quigley; Lawrence Impey; Oliver Rivero-Arias; Jennifer J Kurinczuk Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-03-23 Impact factor: 2.692
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