Cargando…
Prevalence of abnormal umbilical arterial flow on Doppler ultrasound in low-risk and unselected pregnant women: a systematic review
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 rever...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7881445/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33579315 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12978-021-01088-w |
_version_ | 1783650878445584384 |
---|---|
author | Vogel, Joshua P. Vannevel, Valerie Robbers, Gianna Gwako, George Lavin, Tina Adanikin, Abiodun Hlongwane, Tsakane Pattinson, Robert C. Qureshi, Zahida P. Oladapo, Olufemi T. |
author_facet | Vogel, Joshua P. Vannevel, Valerie Robbers, Gianna Gwako, George Lavin, Tina Adanikin, Abiodun Hlongwane, Tsakane Pattinson, Robert C. Qureshi, Zahida P. Oladapo, Olufemi T. |
author_sort | Vogel, Joshua P. |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7881445 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-78814452021-02-17 Prevalence of abnormal umbilical arterial flow on Doppler ultrasound in low-risk and unselected pregnant women: a systematic review Vogel, Joshua P. Vannevel, Valerie Robbers, Gianna Gwako, George Lavin, Tina Adanikin, Abiodun Hlongwane, Tsakane Pattinson, Robert C. Qureshi, Zahida P. Oladapo, Olufemi T. Reprod Health Research 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. BioMed Central 2021-02-12 /pmc/articles/PMC7881445/ /pubmed/33579315 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12978-021-01088-w Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Vogel, Joshua P. Vannevel, Valerie Robbers, Gianna Gwako, George Lavin, Tina Adanikin, Abiodun Hlongwane, Tsakane Pattinson, Robert C. Qureshi, Zahida P. Oladapo, Olufemi T. Prevalence of abnormal umbilical arterial flow on Doppler ultrasound in low-risk and unselected pregnant women: a systematic review |
title | Prevalence of abnormal umbilical arterial flow on Doppler ultrasound in low-risk and unselected pregnant women: a systematic review |
title_full | Prevalence of abnormal umbilical arterial flow on Doppler ultrasound in low-risk and unselected pregnant women: a systematic review |
title_fullStr | Prevalence of abnormal umbilical arterial flow on Doppler ultrasound in low-risk and unselected pregnant women: a systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Prevalence of abnormal umbilical arterial flow on Doppler ultrasound in low-risk and unselected pregnant women: a systematic review |
title_short | Prevalence of abnormal umbilical arterial flow on Doppler ultrasound in low-risk and unselected pregnant women: a systematic review |
title_sort | prevalence of abnormal umbilical arterial flow on doppler ultrasound in low-risk and unselected pregnant women: a systematic review |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7881445/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33579315 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12978-021-01088-w |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vogeljoshuap prevalenceofabnormalumbilicalarterialflowondopplerultrasoundinlowriskandunselectedpregnantwomenasystematicreview AT vannevelvalerie prevalenceofabnormalumbilicalarterialflowondopplerultrasoundinlowriskandunselectedpregnantwomenasystematicreview AT robbersgianna prevalenceofabnormalumbilicalarterialflowondopplerultrasoundinlowriskandunselectedpregnantwomenasystematicreview AT gwakogeorge prevalenceofabnormalumbilicalarterialflowondopplerultrasoundinlowriskandunselectedpregnantwomenasystematicreview AT lavintina prevalenceofabnormalumbilicalarterialflowondopplerultrasoundinlowriskandunselectedpregnantwomenasystematicreview AT adanikinabiodun prevalenceofabnormalumbilicalarterialflowondopplerultrasoundinlowriskandunselectedpregnantwomenasystematicreview AT hlongwanetsakane prevalenceofabnormalumbilicalarterialflowondopplerultrasoundinlowriskandunselectedpregnantwomenasystematicreview AT pattinsonrobertc prevalenceofabnormalumbilicalarterialflowondopplerultrasoundinlowriskandunselectedpregnantwomenasystematicreview AT qureshizahidap prevalenceofabnormalumbilicalarterialflowondopplerultrasoundinlowriskandunselectedpregnantwomenasystematicreview AT oladapoolufemit prevalenceofabnormalumbilicalarterialflowondopplerultrasoundinlowriskandunselectedpregnantwomenasystematicreview |