Cochrane · systematic review · CD007058
Ultrasound for fetal assessment in early pregnancy
Whitworth, M, Bricker, L, Mullan, C · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2015 · Cochrane Library
Pregnancy and ChildbirthAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
4
current version
GRADE rated
4
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 2 · 50%Moderate 2 · 50%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Routine/revealed compared with selective/concealed ultrasound in early pregnancy for fetal assessment in early pregnancy
Population: Pregnant women at less than 24 weeks' gestation undergoing fetal assessment by ultrasound
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Detection of fetal abnormality before 24 weeks' gestation Routine/revealed vs selective/concealed ultrasound | RR 3.46 [1.67, 7.14] | 2 studies · 387 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Detection of multiple pregnancy by 24 to 26 weeks' gestation (number NOT detected) Routine/revealed vs selective/concealed ultrasound | RR 0.07 [0.03, 0.17] | 7 studies · 295 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Induction of labour for 'post‐term' pregnancy Routine/revealed vs selective/concealed ultrasound | RR 0.59 [0.42, 0.83] | 8 studies · 25516 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Perinatal death (all babies) Routine/revealed vs selective/concealed ultrasound | RR 0.89 [0.7, 1.12] | 10 studies · 35735 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |