Question · asked by 1 review
Fetal growth (biometry) + umbilical artery Doppler vs fetal growth: Caesarean section
- Population
- women with twin pregnancies were randomised from 25 weeks
- Intervention
- Fetal growth (biometry) + umbilical artery Doppler
- Comparison
- fetal growth
- Outcome
- Caesarean section
Fetal growth (biometry) + umbilical artery Doppler showed no clear difference in caesarean section (any) compared with fetal growth (high certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Fetal growth (biometry) + umbilical artery Doppler vs fetal growth Caesarean section (any) · women with twin pregnancies were randomised from 25 weeks Fetal growth (biometry) + umbilical artery Doppler showed no clear difference in caesarean section (any) compared with fetal growth (high certainty). Regimens of ultrasound surveillance for twin pregnancies for improving outcomes (2017) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1 [0.81, 1.23] | 1 study · 526 participants | High |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Regimens of ultrasound surveillance for twin pregnancies for improving outcomes 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | Not extracted | Not assessed |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.