Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
outcome (Review)
Stampalija T, Gyte GML, Alfirevic Z
This is a reprint of a Cochrane review, prepared and maintained by The Cochrane Collaboration and published in The Cochrane Library
2010, Issue 9
http://www.thecochranelibrary.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
HEADER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 1.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DATA AND ANALYSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd trimester, Outcome 1
Any perinatal death after randomisation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd trimester, Outcome 2
Hypertensive disorders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis 2.3. Comparison 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd trimester, Outcome 3
Stillbirth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis 2.4. Comparison 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd trimester, Outcome 4
Neonatal death. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis 2.5. Comparison 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd trimester, Outcome 5
Any potentially preventable perinatal death after randomisation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis 2.7. Comparison 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd trimester, Outcome 7
Intrauterine growth restriction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis 2.9. Comparison 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd trimester, Outcome 9
Neonatal resuscitation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis 2.12. Comparison 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd trimester, Outcome 12
Apgar score < 7 at 5 min. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis 2.13. Comparison 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd trimester, Outcome 13
Neonatal admission to SCBU or NICU.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis 2.15. Comparison 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd trimester, Outcome 15
Iatrogenic preterm birth (< 37 weeks). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis 2.16. Comparison 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd trimester, Outcome 16
Caesarean section (both elective and emergency).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis 2.17. Comparison 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd trimester, Outcome 17
Elective caesarean section.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis 2.18. Comparison 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd trimester, Outcome 18
Emergency caesarean section. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis 2.21. Comparison 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd trimester, Outcome 21
Gestational age at birth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis 2.22. Comparison 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd trimester, Outcome 22
Infant birthweight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CONTRIBUTIONS OF AUTHORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SOURCES OF SUPPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PROTOCOL AND REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
INDEX TERMS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
1
2
2
4
4
7
8
10
11
11
11
16
25
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
47
47
48
48
48
48
[Intervention Review]
of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Childrens Hospital V. Buzzi, Milano, Italy. 2 Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth
Group, School of Reproductive and Developmental Medicine, Division of Perinatal and Reproductive Medicine, The University of
Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. 3 School of Reproductive and Developmental Medicine, Division of Perinatal and Reproductive Medicine,
The University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
Contact address: Tamara Stampalija, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Childrens Hospital V. Buzzi, Via Castelvetro 32,
Milano, 20154, Italy. stampta@libero.it.
Editorial group: Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group.
Publication status and date: New, published in Issue 9, 2010.
Review content assessed as up-to-date: 15 July 2010.
Citation: Stampalija T, Gyte GML, Alfirevic Z. Utero-placental Doppler ultrasound for improving pregnancy outcome. Cochrane
Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 9. Art. No.: CD008363. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008363.pub2.
Copyright 2010 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
ABSTRACT
Background
Impaired placentation can cause some of the most important obstetrical complications such as pre-eclampsia and intrauterine growth
restriction and has been linked to increased fetal morbidity and mortality. The failure to undergo physiological trophoblastic vascular
changes is reflected by the high impedance to the blood flow at the level of the uterine arteries. Doppler ultrasound study of uteroplacental blood vessels, using waveform indices or notching, may help to identify the at-risk women in the first and second trimester
of pregnancy, such that interventions might be used to reduce maternal and fetal morbidity and/or mortality.
Objectives
To assess the effects on pregnancy outcome, and obstetric practice, of routine utero-placental Doppler ultrasound in first and second
trimester of pregnancy in pregnant women at high and low risk of hypertensive complications.
Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Groups Trials Register (June 2010) and the reference lists of identified studies.
Selection criteria
Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of Doppler ultrasound for the investigation of utero-placental vessel waveforms in
first and second trimester compared with no Doppler ultrasound. We have excluded studies where uterine vessels have been assessed
together with fetal and umbilical vessels.
Data collection and analysis
Two authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. We checked data
entry.
Utero-placental Doppler ultrasound for improving pregnancy outcome (Review)
Copyright 2010 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Main results
We found two studies involving 4993 participants. The methodological quality of the trials was good. Both studies included women
at low risk for hypertensive disorders, with Doppler ultrasound of the uterine arteries performed in the second trimester of pregnancy.
In both studies, pathological finding of uterine arteries was followed by low-dose aspirin administration.
We identified no difference in short-term maternal and fetal clinical outcomes.
We identified no randomised studies assessing the utero-placental vessels in the first trimester or in women at high risk for hypertensive
disorders.
Authors conclusions
Present evidence failed to show any benefit to either the baby or the mother when utero-placental Doppler ultrasound was used in
the second trimester of pregnancy in women at low risk for hypertensive disorders. Nevertheless, this evidence cannot be considered
conclusive with only two studies included. There were no randomised studies in the first trimester, or in women at high risk. More
research is needed to investigate whether the use of utero-placental Doppler ultrasound may improve pregnancy outcome.
BACKGROUND
from 80% to 85% for severe pre-eclampsia, requiring delivery before 34 weeks (Papageorghiou 2001; Yu 2005) and 90% for severe
pre-eclampsia indicating delivery before 32 weeks (Papageorghiou
2001).
More recently, the interest for uterine artery measurements has
moved from the second to the first trimester of pregnancy (13+6
to 11+0 weeks of gestation). The rationale of measuring the uterine artery Doppler in the first trimester is the possibility to intervene with some prophylactic therapy such as antithrombotic
drugs while the trophoblastic invasion is still ongoing. The uterine
artery Doppler has been found to be less predictive when compared
with the second trimester examination. Reported detection rate
for uterine artery Doppler alone in the first trimester ranged from
40% to 67% for early onset pre-eclampsia and 15% to 20% for late
onset pre-eclampsia (Martin 2001; Parra 2005). In the attempt to
improve the performance of the uterine artery as a screening test,
new algorithms that take into account the maternal characteristics,
history and/or biochemical markers have been proposed. In fact,
uterine artery Doppler in the first and second trimester, in combination with several biochemical markers, has been extensively
tested as a predictive test for pre-eclampsia and IUGR, and the first
results are encouraging (Nicolaides 2006; Parra 2005; Plasencia
2007; Spencer 2007; Zhong 2010). Nevertheless, at present the
literature comprises several large uncontrolled cohort studies and
as yet there are no randomised studies in this field, and the costeffectiveness remains to be proven.
Types of studies
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether the use of utero-placental Doppler ultrasound
(uterine arteries and placental vessels) improves the outcome of
low- and high-risk pregnancies.
METHODS
Types of participants
Pregnant women, considered to be either low- or high-risk, who
had utero-placental Doppler ultrasound performed at first or second trimester of pregnancy. We planned to include twin pregnancies and to perform subgroup analysis for that population but
there were insufficient data.
Types of interventions
Doppler ultrasound of the utero-placental circulation (uterine,
arcuate, radial and spiral arteries) in pregnancies at low and high
risk. We did not include studies that considered the combination
of utero-placental Doppler and fetal or umbilical Doppler in this
review, but did include them in fetal and umbilical Doppler reviews
(Alfirevic 2010a; Alfirevic 2010b).
Comparisons
Primary outcomes
Selection of studies
Two review authors (TS, GG) independently assessed for inclusion
all potential studies we identified as a result of the search strategy.
We resolved any disagreement through discussion or, if required,
we consulted the third author (ZA).
Electronic searches
We contacted the Trials Search Co-ordinator to search the
Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Groups Trials Register (June
2010).
The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Groups Trials Register
is maintained by the Trials Search Co-ordinator and contains trials
identified from:
1. quarterly searches of the Cochrane Central Register of
Controlled Trials (CENTRAL);
2. weekly searches of MEDLINE;
3. handsearches of 30 journals and the proceedings of major
conferences;
4. weekly current awareness alerts for a further 44 journals
plus monthly BioMed Central email alerts.
Details of the search strategies for CENTRAL and MEDLINE,
the list of handsearched journals and conference proceedings, and
the list of journals reviewed via the current awareness service can
be found in the Specialized Register section within the editorial information about the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth
Group.
Trials identified through the searching activities described above
are each assigned to a review topic (or topics). The Trials Search
Co-ordinator searches the register for each review using the topic
list rather than keywords.
We designed a form to extract data. For eligible studies, two review authors (TS, GG) extracted the data using the agreed form,
with additional help at times (Stephania Livio). We resolved discrepancies through discussion or, if required, we consulted the
third author (ZA). We entered data into Review Manager software
(RevMan 2008) (TS) and checked for accuracy (GG).
When information regarding any of the above was unclear, we
attempted to contact authors of the original reports to provide
further details.
We describe for each included study, and for each outcome or class
of outcomes, the completeness of data including attrition and exclusions from the analysis. We state whether attrition and exclusions were reported, the numbers included in the analysis at each
stage (compared with the total randomised participants), reasons
for attrition or exclusion where reported, and whether missing data
were balanced across groups or were related to outcomes. Where
sufficient information was reported, or was supplied by the trial
authors, we have re-included missing data in the analyses which
we undertook. We assessed methods as:
adequate;
inadequate:
unclear.
We were to discuss whether missing data greater than 20% might
impact on outcomes, acknowledging that with long-term follow
up, complete data are difficult to attain. However, none of the
included studies had greater than 20% missing data.
Dichotomous data
Continuous data
We describe for each included study how we investigated the possibility of selective outcome reporting bias and what we found.
We assessed the methods as:
adequate (where it was clear that all of the studys prespecified outcomes and all expected outcomes of interest to the
review have been reported);
inadequate (where not all the studys pre-specified outcomes
have been reported; one or more reported primary outcomes
were not pre-specified; outcomes of interest were reported
Cluster-randomised trials
effect of variation in the ICC. If we had identified both clusterrandomised trials and individually-randomised trials, we would
have planned to synthesise the relevant information. We would
have considered it reasonable to combine the results from both if
there was little heterogeneity between the study designs and the
interaction between the effect of intervention and the choice of
randomisation unit were considered to be unlikely.
We would also have acknowledged any heterogeneity in the randomisation unit and perform a separate meta-analysis.
Cross-over trials
Assessment of heterogeneity
We assessed statistical heterogeneity in each meta-analysis using
the T (tau-squared), I and Chi statistics. We regarded heterogeneity as substantial if T was greater than zero and either I was
greater than 30% or there was a low P-value (less than 0.10) in the
Chi test for heterogeneity. Where we found heterogeneity and
random-effects was used, we have reported the average risk ratio,
or average mean difference or average standard mean difference.
Data synthesis
We carried out statistical analysis using the Review Manager software (RevMan 2008). We used fixed-effect meta-analysis for combining data where it was reasonable to assume that studies were
estimating the same underlying treatment effect: i.e. where trials
were examining the same intervention, and the trials populations
and methods were judged sufficiently similar. If there was clinical
heterogeneity sufficient to expect that the underlying treatment effects differ between trials, or if substantial statistical heterogeneity
was detected, we would have used random-effects analysis to produce an overall summary, if this was considered clinically meaningful. If an average treatment effect across trials was not clinically
meaningful, we would not have combined heterogeneous trials. If
we used random-effects analyses, the results have been presented
as the average treatment effect and its 95% confidence interval,
the 95% prediction interval for the underlying treatment effect,
and the estimates of T and I (Higgins 2009).
Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity
We had planned to carry out the following subgroup analyses on
all outcomes:
1. measurements in high-risk population, low-risk population
and unselected population;
2. in singleton and twin pregnancies.
However, there were insufficient data to perform any subgroup
analyses. We had also planned to pull together the three subgroups
for the overall estimation.
For fixed-effect meta-analyses, we had planned to conduct the
planned subgroup analyses classifying whole trials by interaction
tests as described by Deeks 2001. For random-effects meta-analyses, we would have assessed differences between subgroups by inspection of the subgroups confidence intervals; non-overlapping
confidence intervals indicate a statistically significant difference in
treatment effect between the subgroups.
Sensitivity analysis
We would have performed sensitivity analysis on the primary outcomes based on trial quality, separating high-quality trials from
trials of lower quality. High quality would, for the purposes of
this sensitivity analysis, have been defined as a trial having adequate sequence generation and allocation concealment.
RESULTS
Description of studies
See: Characteristics of included studies; Characteristics of excluded
studies; Characteristics of studies awaiting classification.
Figure 1. Methodological quality summary: review authors judgements about each methodological quality
item for each included study.
Allocation
Both studies had adequate sequence generation and concealment
allocation (Goffinet 2001; Subtil 2003).
Blinding
Blinding women and/or staff in these trials was not generally feasible. Some outcomes like induction of labour and caesarean section may be influenced by the knowledge of Doppler results, but
it may be possible to avoid bias in neonatal assessment. Unfortunately, the information on the attempts to protect against biased
assessment was not available.
Incomplete outcome data
The two studies had adequate outcome data (Goffinet 2001; Subtil
2003). One of the studies awaiting classification (Ellwood 1997)
aimed to recruit 524 women, but undertook the analysis after 364
women had entered the trial, though data were available on only
164. As this was not a block randomisation, we cannot be sure
these are randomised groups being compared so we are awaiting
the full study to be reported before including any data.
Primary outcomes
It is important to emphasise that this review remains underpowered to detect clinically important differences in serious maternal
and neonatal morbidity.
Selective reporting
We assessed both included studies as unclear because we did not
assess the trial protocols.
Other potential sources of bias
One study appeared free of other biases (Subtil 2003), whilst for
the other this was unclear (Goffinet 2001).
Sensitivity analyses
For sensitivity analyses by quality of studies, we have used both adequate labelled sequence generation and adequate allocation concealment as essential criteria for high quality. Two of three studies met these criteria (Goffinet 2001; Subtil 2003), see Figure 1.
However, we feel there are insufficient data to perform a sensitivity
analysis by quality.
Effects of interventions
Hypertensive disorders
Sensitivity analysis
There was no difference identified in maternal hypertensive disorders between two groups (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.33, two
studies, 4987 women, Analysis 2.2).
Secondary outcomes
DISCUSSION
We found no significant difference in the pooled estimate of the intervention effect for the range of secondary outcomes with low heterogeneity where a fixed-effect meta-analysis was used. Most prespecified secondary outcomes had high heterogeneity and therefore an intervention effect estimate across studies was calculated
using random-effects.
There was no significant difference in stillbirths (average RR 1.44,
95% CI 0.38 to 5.49, two studies, 5003 babies, random-effects
T = 0.70, Chi P = 0.04, I = 75%, Analysis 2.3), or for neonatal
deaths (RR 2.39, 95% CI 0.39 to 14.83, two studies, 5009 babies,
Analysis 2.4). Similarly for Any potentially preventable perinatal
death after randomisation (average RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.21 to 7.94,
two studies, 5009 babies, random-effects T 1.09, Chi P = 0.11, I
= 60%, Analysis 2.5). These data should be interpreted cautiously
because the numbers are small and heterogeneity is high.
The data for neonatal admission to special care baby unit (SCBU)
or neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92
to 1.37, two studies, 5001 babies, Analysis 2.13) and iatrogenic
preterm birth (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.65, two studies,
4982 women, random-effects T = 0.09, Chi P = 0.15, I = 51%,
Analysis 2.15) are consistent with the overall picture showing no
significant difference in two groups. The meta-analysis also failed
to identify any difference in IUGR (average RR 0.98, 95% CI
0.64 to 1.50, two studies, 5006 babies, random-effects T = 0.08,
Chi P = 0.02, I = 82%, Analysis 2.7), although there was high
heterogeneity, so it is also possible that there are different effects
in the different studies, for unknown reasons.
Only one study assessed neonatal resuscitation (RR 0.94, 95% CI
0.75 to 1.19, 3133 babies, Analysis 2.9), Apgar score less than
seven at five minutes (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.45, 3133 babies)
(Analysis 2.12) and caesarean sections (emergency plus elective)
(RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.29, 3133 women) (Analysis 2.16).
We found no significant difference for any of these outcomes.
None of the studies assessed the following outcomes: Serious
neonatal morbidity, Fetal distress, Infant requiring intubation/
ventilation, Infant respiratory distress syndrome, Spontaneous
preterm birth, Serious maternal morbidity and Maternal admission to special care.
Non-prespecified outcomes
10
There were only two studies involving 4993 women, and clearly
the meta-analysis remains underpowered to show clinically important differences in primary outcomes. The identification of an
abnormal results also needs an effective intervention before the
screening test can be said to be helpful.
AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would also like to thank Stefania Livio, who helped with some
of the data extractions, and Eugenie Ong, who translated the de
Rochambeau 1992 study.
As part of the pre-publication editorial process, this review has been
commented on by two peers (an editor and referee who is external
to the editorial team), a member of the Pregnancy and Childbirth
Groups international panel of consumers and the Groups Statistical Adviser.
REFERENCES
11
12
13
Additional references
Aardema 2001
Aardema MW, Oosterhof H, Timmer A, van Rooy
I, Aarnoudse JG. Uterine artery Doppler flow and
uteroplacental vascular pathology in normal pregnancies
and pregnancies complicated by pre-eclampsia and small for
gestational age fetuses. Placenta 2001;22(5):40511.
Albaiges 2000
Albaiges G, Missfelder-Lobos H, Lees C, Parra M,
Nicolaides KH. One-stage screening for pregnancy
complications by color Doppler assessment of the uterine
arteries at 23 weeks gestation. Obstetrics & Gynecology
2000;96(4):55964.
Alfirevic 2010a
Alfirevic Z, Stampalija T, Gyte GML, Neilson JP. Fetal and
umbilical Doppler ultrasound in high risk pregnancies.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 1.
[DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007529.pub2]
Alfirevic 2010b
Alfirevic Z, Stampalija T, Gyte GML. Fetal and umbilical
Doppler ultrasound in normal pregnancy. Cochrane
Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 8. [DOI:
10.1002/14651858.CD001450.pub3]
Askie 2007
Askie LM, Duley L, Henderson-Smart DJ, Stewart LA.
Antiplatelet agents for prevention of pre-eclampsia: a metaanalysis of individual patient data. Lancet 2007;369:
17918.
Barker 2004
Barker DJ. The developmental origins of chronic adult
disease. Acta Paediatrica. Supplement 2004;93(446):2633.
Bernstein 2000
Bernstein IM, Horbar JD, Badger GJ, Ohlsson A, Golan
A. Morbidity and mortality among very-low-birth neonates
with intrauterine growth restriction. The Vermont Oxford
Network. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
2000;182:198206.
BJOG 1995
Anonymous. Retraction of articles. British Journal of
Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1995;102(11):853.
Bower 1993
Bower S, Schuchter K, Campbell S. Doppler ultrasound
screening as part of routine antenatal screening: prediction
of pre-eclampsia and intrauterine growth retardation.
British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1993;100(11):
98994.
Brosens 1972
Brosens IA, Robertson WB, Dixon HG. The role of the
spiral arteries in the pathogenesis of preeclampsia. Obstetrics
and Gynecology Annual 1972;1:17791.
Burns 1993
Burns PN. Principles of Doppler and colour flow. Radiology
in Medicine 1993;85:316.
Chen 1996
Chen JF, Fowlkes JB, Carson PL, Rubin JM, Adler RS.
Autocorrelation of integrated power Doppler signals and its
application. Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology 1996;22:
10537.
Cnossen 2008
Cnossen JS, Morris RK, ter Riet G, Mol BW, van der Post
JA, Coomarasamy A, et al.Use of uterine artery Doppler
ultrasonography to predict pre-eclampsia and intrauterine
growth restriction: a systematic review and bivariable metaanalysis. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2008;178
(6):70111.
Deeks 2001
Deeks JJ, Altman DG, Bradburn MJ. Statistical methods
for examining heterogeneity and combining results from
14
15
16
CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDIES
Participants
Inclusion criteria:
All women attending for a routine antenatal visit before 24 weeks.
Nulliparaus and multiparus.
Low risk.
N = 3317, though analysis on 3133.
Exclusion criteria:
Women who had indications for UAD including chronic hypertension, diabetes,
previous fetal death, IUGR, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.
Women known to be at high risk before 24 weeks did not enter the trial.
Women with contraindications to aspirin were also excluded.
Interventions
Outcomes
Principal outcome: IUGR (birthweight < 10% and < 3% according to gestational age)
Pre-eclampsia, gestational hypertension.
Uterine bleeding, oligohydramnios, abnormal CTG.
Number of antenatal consultations, days of antenatal hospitalisation, CTG
measurements, ultrasound and Doppler tests.
Peri and neonatal death, fetal distress defined by abnormal CTG resulting in
intervention (caesarean or instrumental delivery), Apgar score, neonatal resuscitation,
neonatal transfer.
Notes
Risk of bias
Item
Authors judgement
Description
Yes
17
Goffinet 2001
(Continued)
Yes
Blinding?
All outcomes
No
Yes
Unclear
Unclear
18
Subtil 2003
Methods
Participants
Inclusion criteria:
Nulliparae (no previous delivery 22 weeks) between 14 and 20+6 weeks.
Singletons and twins.
N = 1870. 2491 women agreed to participate and were randomised. 621 were
excluded from the current evaluation as they were allocated to routine aspirin leaving
1870 in the current evaluation. Data available on 1860 women.
Exclusion criteria:
No history of hypertension.
No clear indications for or contraindications to the prescription of aspirin or
another anticoagulant during the pregnancy.
Interventions
Outcomes
Pre-eclampsia, pregnancy related hypertension, very low or low birthweight for gestational age (birthweight 3rd and 10th centile of the standard curves used in France),
HELLP syndrome, placental abruption or a caesarean section because of fetal indication
(uncompensated maternal hypertension, suspected IUGR, meconium stained amniotic
fluid or placental abruption)
Notes
Doppler group included 22 twin pregnancies and the control group included 14 twin
pregnancies
Risk of bias
Item
Authors judgement
Description
Yes
...a randomisation list was computer generated by the manufacturer of the treatment
19
Subtil 2003
(Continued)
Yes
Blinding?
All outcomes
No
Yes
20
Subtil 2003
(Continued)
Unclear
Yes
Study
Almstrom 1992
Ben-Ami 1995
Biljan 1992
Burke 1992
Davies 1992
Study assessing umbilical artery and uterine artery Doppler ultrasound, see Alfirevic 2010b.
de Rochambeau 1992
21
(Continued)
Doppler 1997
Giles 2003
Gonsoulin 1991
Conference abstract - not clear whether high-risk/low-risk/unselected pregnancies, and no data suitable for
inclusion. Further details were sought from the authors by the authors of the previous Doppler for unselected
population review, without success.
Haley 1997
Hofmeyr 1991
Johnstone 1993
Mason 1993
McCowan 1996
Conference abstract only but outcomes were comparing women with normal and abnormal Doppler ultrasound readings, so not a randomised comparison
McParland 1988
This study has never been reported in full although it has been partly reported in a review article (McParland
1988) and a full manuscript has been given to the review authors by Dr Pearce, who has been accused of
publishing reports of trials whose veracity cannot be confirmed (BJOG 1995). Consequently, the Doppler
trial data are not now thought by the review authors to be sufficiently reliable to be retained within this
review.
Neales 1994
Newnham 1991
Study assessing umbilical artery and uterine artery Doppler ultrasound, see Alfirevic 2010a.
Newnham 1993
Study assessing umbilical artery and uterine artery Doppler ultrasound (see Alfirevic 2010b).
Nienhuis 1997
Nimrod 1992
Norman 1992
Omtzigt 1994
Pattinson 1994
Pearce 1992
Dr Pearce has been accused of publishing reports of trials whose veracity cannot be confirmed (BJOG 1995)
. Consequently, the Doppler trial data are not now thought by the review authors to be sufficiently reliable
to be retained within this review.
Schneider 1992
Conference abstract in English language identified - unexplained difference in numbers (250 vs 329) in
Doppler vs control groups suggesting allocation bias. The definitive publication after translation from Ger-
22
(Continued)
man did not explain this difference and failed to outline the trial methodology
Scholler 1993
This study was translated from German for us. It was a quasi-RCT of 211 women undergoing Doppler
ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound. It was excluded for a combination of the following reasons: the
only outcome relevant to our review was induction of labour; the study had high risk of bias being a quasiRCT; further information was needed from the authors before this data could be included. Data reported
for induction of labour: Doppler group 37/108 and no Doppler group 41/103
Trudinger 1987
Tyrrell 1990
Study assessing umbilical artery and uterine artery Doppler ultrasound, see Alfirevic 2010a.
Whittle 1994
Williams 2003
Participants
Inclusion criteria
Pregnant women with no pre-existing medical condition.
First ongoing pregnancy (one first trimester pregnancy loss is allowed).
Exclusion criteria
Medical conditions, previous pregnancies.
Interventions
Outcomes
Pre-specified outcomes: gestational age at delivery, rate of preterm birth, unplanned admissions for pre-eclampsia
and fetal growth restriction and bed days, neonates with Apgar scores < 7 at 5 min, neonatal admissions and special
care nursery bed days
Notes
The study was still ongoing when this report was written. The plan was to recruit 524 women, 262 in each group
(power calculation done on admission to neonatal nursery). At time of report 364 women had been randomised and
145 had given birth and been followed up
23
Ellwood 1997
(Continued)
Snaith 2006
Methods
Participants
Interventions
Structured telephone support intervention provided by midwife +/- uterine artery Doppler screening
Outcomes
Notes
24
Comparison 1. Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 1st trimester
No. of
studies
No. of
participants
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
0
0
0
0
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
0
0
0
0
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
0
0
0
0
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Statistical method
Effect size
25
Not estimable
Not estimable
0
0
0
0
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
0
0
0
0
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
0
0
0
0
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
0
0
0
0
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
26
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
0
0
0
0
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
0
0
0
0
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
27
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
0
0
0
0
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
0
0
0
0
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
0
0
0
0
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Comparison 2. Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd trimester
No. of
studies
No. of
participants
5009
Statistical method
Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI)
Effect size
1.61 [0.48, 5.39]
28
Not estimable
5009
Not estimable
2
0
4987
0
4987
Not estimable
2
0
5003
0
5003
Not estimable
2
0
5009
0
5009
Not estimable
5009
Not estimable
5009
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
2
0
5006
0
5006
Not estimable
29
8 Fetal distress
8.1 Women at increased risk
of complications
8.2 Women at low risk of
complications
8.3 Unselected population of
women
9 Neonatal resuscitation
9.1 Women at increased risk
of complications
9.2 Women at low risk of
complications
9.3 Unselected population of
women
10 Infant requiring intubation/
ventilation
10.1 Women at increased risk
of complications
10.2 Women at low risk of
complications
10.3 Unselected population of
women
11 Infant respiratory distress
syndrome
11.1 Women at increased risk
of complications
11.2 Women at low risk of
complications
11.3 Unselected population of
women
12 Apgar score < 7 at 5 min
12.1 Women at increased risk
of complications
12.2 Women at low risk of
complications
12.3 Unselected population of
women
13 Neonatal admission to SCBU
or NICU
13.1 Women at increased risk
of complications
13.2 Women at low risk of
complications
13.3 Unselected population of
women
14 Spontaneous preterm birth (<
37 weeks)
14.1 Women at increased risk
of complications
0
0
0
0
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
1
0
3133
0
3133
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
1
0
3133
0
3133
Not estimable
5001
Not estimable
5001
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
30
Not estimable
Not estimable
4982
Not estimable
4982
Not estimable
3133
Not estimable
3133
Not estimable
1
0
3133
0
3133
Not estimable
1
0
3133
0
3133
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
3133
31
Not estimable
3133
Not estimable
1
0
3133
0
3133
Not estimable
0
0
0
0
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
Not estimable
32
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd
trimester, Outcome 1 Any perinatal death after randomisation.
Review:
Comparison: 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd trimester
Outcome: 1 Any perinatal death after randomisation
Study or subgroup
Doppler US
No Doppler US
n/N
n/N
Risk Ratio
MH,Random,95%
CI
Weight
Risk Ratio
MH,Random,95%
CI
0.0 %
13/1572
14/1561
54.6 %
Subtil 2003
25/1249
4/627
45.4 %
2821
2188
100.0 %
0.0 %
2188
100.0 %
2821
0.01
0.1
Favours Doppler
10
100
Favours no Doppler
33
Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd
trimester, Outcome 2 Hypertensive disorders.
Review:
Comparison: 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd trimester
Outcome: 2 Hypertensive disorders
Study or subgroup
Doppler US
No Doppler US
n/N
n/N
Risk Ratio
Weight
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
0.0 %
83/1572
81/1561
51.2 %
133/1238
58/616
48.8 %
2810
2177
100.0 %
0.0 %
2177
100.0 %
2810
0.5
0.7
Favours Doppler
1.5
Favours no Doppler
34
Analysis 2.3. Comparison 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd
trimester, Outcome 3 Stillbirth.
Review:
Comparison: 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd trimester
Outcome: 3 Stillbirth
Study or subgroup
Doppler US
No Doppler US
n/N
n/N
Risk Ratio
MH,Random,95%
CI
Weight
Risk Ratio
MH,Random,95%
CI
0.0 %
24/1253
4/617
47.0 %
Goffinet 2001
10/1572
13/1561
53.0 %
2825
2178
100.0 %
0.0 %
2178
100.0 %
2825
0.05
0.2
Favours Doppler
20
Favours no Doppler
35
Analysis 2.4. Comparison 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd
trimester, Outcome 4 Neonatal death.
Review:
Comparison: 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd trimester
Outcome: 4 Neonatal death
Study or subgroup
Doppler US
No Doppler US
n/N
n/N
Risk Ratio
Weight
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
0.0 %
3/1572
1/1561
60.1 %
Subtil 2003
1/1249
0/627
39.9 %
2821
2188
100.0 %
0.0 %
2188
100.0 %
2821
0.01
0.1
Favours Doppler
10
100
Favours no Doppler
36
Analysis 2.5. Comparison 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd
trimester, Outcome 5 Any potentially preventable perinatal death after randomisation.
Review:
Comparison: 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd trimester
Outcome: 5 Any potentially preventable perinatal death after randomisation
Study or subgroup
Doppler US
No Doppler US
n/N
n/N
Risk Ratio
MH,Random,95%
CI
Weight
Risk Ratio
MH,Random,95%
CI
0.0 %
5/1572
8/1561
61.0 %
Subtil 2003
8/1249
1/627
39.0 %
2821
2188
100.0 %
0.0 %
2188
100.0 %
2821
0.01
0.1
Favours Doppler
10
100
Favours no Doppler
37
Analysis 2.7. Comparison 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd
trimester, Outcome 7 Intrauterine growth restriction.
Review:
Comparison: 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd trimester
Outcome: 7 Intrauterine growth restriction
Study or subgroup
Doppler US
No Doppler US
n/N
n/N
Odds Ratio
MH,Random,95%
CI
Weight
Odds Ratio
MH,Random,95%
CI
0.0 %
162/1572
135/1561
51.1 %
Subtil 2003
158/1246
98/627
48.9 %
2818
2188
100.0 %
0.0 %
2188
100.0 %
2818
0.01
0.1
Favours Doppler
10
100
Favours no Doppler
38
Analysis 2.9. Comparison 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd
trimester, Outcome 9 Neonatal resuscitation.
Review:
Comparison: 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd trimester
Outcome: 9 Neonatal resuscitation
Study or subgroup
Doppler US
No Doppler US
n/N
n/N
Risk Ratio
Weight
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
0.0 %
127/1572
134/1561
100.0 %
1572
1561
100.0 %
0.0 %
1561
100.0 %
1572
0.01
0.1
Favours Doppler
10
100
Favours no Doppler
39
Analysis 2.12. Comparison 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd
trimester, Outcome 12 Apgar score < 7 at 5 min.
Review:
Comparison: 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd trimester
Outcome: 12 Apgar score < 7 at 5 min
Study or subgroup
Doppler US
No Doppler US
n/N
n/N
Risk Ratio
Weight
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
0.0 %
12/1572
11/1561
100.0 %
1572
1561
100.0 %
0.0 %
1561
100.0 %
1572
0.01
0.1
Favours Doppler
10
100
Favours no Doppler
40
Analysis 2.13. Comparison 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd
trimester, Outcome 13 Neonatal admission to SCBU or NICU.
Review:
Comparison: 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd trimester
Outcome: 13 Neonatal admission to SCBU or NICU
Study or subgroup
Doppler US
No Doppler US
n/N
n/N
Risk Ratio
Weight
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
0.0 %
142/1572
121/1561
74.0 %
63/1242
32/626
26.0 %
2814
2187
100.0 %
0.0 %
2187
100.0 %
2814
0.01
0.1
Favours Doppler
10
100
Favours no Doppler
41
Analysis 2.15. Comparison 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd
trimester, Outcome 15 Iatrogenic preterm birth (< 37 weeks).
Review:
Comparison: 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd trimester
Outcome: 15 Iatrogenic preterm birth (< 37 weeks)
Study or subgroup
Doppler US
No Doppler US
n/N
n/N
Risk Ratio
MH,Random,95%
CI
Weight
Risk Ratio
MH,Random,95%
CI
0.0 %
16/1572
24/1561
46.3 %
Subtil 2003
44/1237
18/612
53.7 %
2809
2173
100.0 %
0.0 %
2173
100.0 %
2809
0.01
0.1
Favours Doppler
10
100
Favours no Doppler
42
Analysis 2.16. Comparison 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd
trimester, Outcome 16 Caesarean section (both elective and emergency).
Review:
Comparison: 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd trimester
Outcome: 16 Caesarean section (both elective and emergency)
Study or subgroup
Doppler US
No Doppler US
n/N
n/N
Risk Ratio
Weight
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
0.0 %
232/1572
212/1561
100.0 %
1572
1561
100.0 %
0.0 %
1561
100.0 %
1572
0.01
0.1
Favours Doppler
10
100
Favours no Doppler
43
Analysis 2.17. Comparison 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd
trimester, Outcome 17 Elective caesarean section.
Review:
Comparison: 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd trimester
Outcome: 17 Elective caesarean section
Study or subgroup
Doppler US
No Doppler US
n/N
n/N
Risk Ratio
Weight
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
0.0 %
117/1572
111/1561
100.0 %
1572
1561
100.0 %
0.0 %
1561
100.0 %
1572
0.01
0.1
Favours Doppler
10
100
Favours no Doppler
44
Analysis 2.18. Comparison 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd
trimester, Outcome 18 Emergency caesarean section.
Review:
Comparison: 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd trimester
Outcome: 18 Emergency caesarean section
Study or subgroup
Doppler US
No Doppler US
n/N
n/N
Risk Ratio
Weight
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
0.0 %
115/1572
101/1561
100.0 %
1572
1561
100.0 %
0.0 %
1561
100.0 %
1572
0.01
0.1
Favours Doppler
10
100
Favours no Doppler
45
Analysis 2.21. Comparison 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd
trimester, Outcome 21 Gestational age at birth.
Review:
Comparison: 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd trimester
Outcome: 21 Gestational age at birth
Study or subgroup
Doppler US
N
Mean
Difference
No Doppler US
Mean(SD)
Mean(SD)
Weight
IV,Fixed,95% CI
Mean
Difference
IV,Fixed,95% CI
0.0 %
100.0 %
1572
1572
39 (2)
1561
39.1 (2)
1561
1572
1561
0.0 %
-100
-50
Favours no Doppler
50
100
Favours Doppler
46
Analysis 2.22. Comparison 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd
trimester, Outcome 22 Infant birthweight.
Review:
Comparison: 2 Uterine artery Doppler ultrasound versus no Doppler ultrasound, 2nd trimester
Outcome: 22 Infant birthweight
Study or subgroup
Doppler US
Mean
Difference
No Doppler US
Mean(SD)
Mean(SD)
Weight
IV,Fixed,95% CI
Mean
Difference
IV,Fixed,95% CI
0.0 %
100.0 %
1572
3282 (503)
1572
1561
3316 (486)
1561
1572
1561
0.0 %
-100
-50
Favours no Doppler
50
100
Favours Doppler
HISTORY
Protocol first published: Issue 2, 2010
Review first published: Issue 9, 2010
47
CONTRIBUTIONS OF AUTHORS
T Stampalija drafted the background section and Z Alfirevic added further suggestions. G Gyte drafted the methodology section. T
Stampalija and G Gyte decided on the studies to include and extracted the data. T Stampalija entered the data into RevMan (RevMan
2008) and G Gyte checked this. T Stampalija drafted the text of the findings and all authors agreed with the final version of the review.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
No known conflicts of interest.
SOURCES OF SUPPORT
Internal sources
The University of Liverpool, UK.
External sources
National Institute for Health Research, UK.
NIHR NHS Cochrane Collaboration Programme Grant Scheme award for NHS-prioritised centrally-managed, pregnancy and
childbirth systematic reviews: CPGS02
INDEX TERMS
Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)
Pregnancy Outcome; Aspirin [administration & dosage]; Fibrinolytic Agents [administration & dosage]; Placenta [ ultrasonography];
Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors [administration & dosage]; Pregnancy Trimester, Second; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic;
Regional Blood Flow; Ultrasonography, Prenatal; Uterine Artery [ ultrasonography]
48