Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

16 questions · 16 findings · 2 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 3 · 18.8%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 5 · 31.3%Low 4 · 25%Moderate 2 · 12.5%High 2 · 12.5%

Fetal biometry vs maternal glycaemic values

Caesarean section · women with gestational diabetes mellitus and their babies

Fetal biometry showed no clear difference in caesarean delivery compared with maternal glycaemic values (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Fetal biometry for guiding the medical management of women with gestational diabetes mellitus for improving maternal… 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.81 [0.59, 1.1]
2 studies · 428 participants
Low

Fetal biometry vs maternal glycaemic values

Maternal Hypoglycaemia ‐ not reported · women with gestational diabetes mellitus and their babies

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Fetal biometry for guiding the medical management of women with gestational diabetes mellitus for improving maternal… 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Fetal biometry vs maternal glycaemic values

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy · women with gestational diabetes mellitus and their babies

It is very uncertain whether fetal biometry changes hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (including pre‐eclampsia,… compared with maternal glycaemic values (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Fetal biometry for guiding the medical management of women with gestational diabetes mellitus for improving maternal… 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.8 [0.34, 1.89]
2 studies · 325 participants
Very low

Fetal biometry vs maternal glycaemic values

Development of T2DM in mother ‐ not reported · women with gestational diabetes mellitus and their babies

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Fetal biometry for guiding the medical management of women with gestational diabetes mellitus for improving maternal… 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Fetal biometry vs maternal glycaemic values

Large‐for‐gestational age · women with gestational diabetes mellitus and their babies

It is very uncertain whether fetal biometry changes large‐for‐gestational age compared with maternal glycaemic values (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Fetal biometry for guiding the medical management of women with gestational diabetes mellitus for improving maternal… 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.81 [0.38, 1.74]
3 studies · 524 participants
Very low

Fetal biometry vs maternal glycaemic values

Shoulder dystocia · women with gestational diabetes mellitus and their babies

It is very uncertain whether fetal biometry changes shoulder dystocia compared with maternal glycaemic values (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Fetal biometry for guiding the medical management of women with gestational diabetes mellitus for improving maternal… 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.33 [0.01, 7.98]
1 study · 96 participants
Very low

Fetal biometry vs maternal glycaemic values

Health status and well‐being – neonatal morbidity and mortality combined · women with gestational diabetes mellitus and their babies

It is very uncertain whether fetal biometry changes composite outcome neonatal morbidity or mortality compared with maternal glycaemic values (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Fetal biometry for guiding the medical management of women with gestational diabetes mellitus for improving maternal… 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1 [0.21, 4.71]
1 study · 96 participants
Very low

Fetal biometry vs maternal glycaemic values

Neonatal hypoglycaemia · women with gestational diabetes mellitus and their babies

Fetal biometry showed no clear difference in neonatal hypoglycaemia compared with maternal glycaemic values (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Fetal biometry for guiding the medical management of women with gestational diabetes mellitus for improving maternal… 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.9 [0.57, 1.42]
3 studies · 524 participants
Low

Fetal biometry vs maternal glycaemic values

Perinatal mortality · women with gestational diabetes mellitus and their babies

It is very uncertain whether fetal biometry changes perinatal mortality compared with maternal glycaemic values (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Fetal biometry for guiding the medical management of women with gestational diabetes mellitus for improving maternal… 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.33 [0.01, 7.98]
1 study · 96 participants
Very low

Fetal growth (biometry) + umbilical artery Doppler vs fetal growth

Any perinatal death after randomisation · women with twin pregnancies were randomised from 25 weeks

Fetal growth (biometry) + umbilical artery Doppler showed no clear difference in perinatal mortality (after randomisation) compared with fetal growth (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Regimens of ultrasound surveillance for twin pregnancies for improving outcomes 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.88 [0.32, 2.41]
1 study · 1052 participants
Low

Fetal growth (biometry) + umbilical artery Doppler vs fetal growth

Neonatal mortality · women with twin pregnancies were randomised from 25 weeks

Fetal growth (biometry) + umbilical artery Doppler showed no clear difference in neonatal death compared with fetal growth (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Regimens of ultrasound surveillance for twin pregnancies for improving outcomes 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.01 [0.29, 3.46]
1 study · 1052 participants
Low

Fetal growth (biometry) + umbilical artery Doppler vs fetal growth

Preterm birth less than 28 weeks · women with twin pregnancies were randomised from 25 weeks

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Regimens of ultrasound surveillance for twin pregnancies for improving outcomes 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Fetal growth (biometry) + umbilical artery Doppler vs fetal growth

Gestational age at birth (weeks) · women with twin pregnancies were randomised from 25 weeks

Fetal growth (biometry) + umbilical artery Doppler showed no clear difference in gestational age at birth (weeks) compared with fetal growth (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Regimens of ultrasound surveillance for twin pregnancies for improving outcomes 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
MD 0.1
1 study · 526 participants
Moderate

Fetal growth (biometry) + umbilical artery Doppler vs fetal growth

Caesarean section · 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).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Fetal growth (biometry) + umbilical artery Doppler vs fetal growth

Induction of labour · women with twin pregnancies were randomised from 25 weeks

Fetal growth (biometry) + umbilical artery Doppler showed no clear difference in induction of labour compared with fetal growth (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Regimens of ultrasound surveillance for twin pregnancies for improving outcomes 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.1 [0.8, 1.5]
1 study · 526 participants
Moderate

Fetal growth (biometry) + umbilical artery Doppler vs fetal growth

Number of antenatal hospital admissions · women with twin pregnancies were randomised from 25 weeks

Fetal growth (biometry) + umbilical artery Doppler showed no clear difference in antenatal admission to hospital compared with fetal growth (high certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Regimens of ultrasound surveillance for twin pregnancies for improving outcomes 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.96 [0.8, 1.15]
1 study · 526 participants
High