Cochrane · systematic review · CD007529
Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in high‐risk pregnancies
Alfirevic, Z, Stampalija, T, Dowswell, T · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2017 · Cochrane Library
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
7
current version
GRADE rated
6
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 1 · 14.3%Very low 1 · 14.3%Low 2 · 28.6%Moderate 3 · 42.9%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
Current version onlyUmbilical artery Doppler ultrasound compared to no Doppler ultrasound in high‐risk pregnancies
Population: pregnant women at increased risk of fetal complications
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Any perinatal death after randomisation Umbilical artery Doppler ultrasound vs no Doppler ultrasound | RR 0.71 [0.52, 0.98] | 16 studies · 10225 participants | Moderate |
Serious neonatal morbidity Umbilical artery Doppler ultrasound vs no Doppler ultrasound | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 1098 participants | Very low |
Stillbirth Umbilical artery Doppler ultrasound vs no Doppler ultrasound | RR 0.65 [0.41, 1.04] | 15 studies · 9560 participants | Low |
Apgar < 7 at 5 minutes Umbilical artery Doppler ultrasound vs no Doppler ultrasound | RR 0.92 [0.69, 1.24] | 7 studies · 6321 participants | Low |
Caesarean section (elective and emergency) Umbilical artery Doppler ultrasound vs no Doppler ultrasound | RR 0.9 [0.84, 0.97] | 14 studies · 7918 participants | Moderate |
Induction of labour Umbilical artery Doppler ultrasound vs no Doppler ultrasound | RR 0.89 [0.8, 0.99] | 10 studies · 5633 participants | Moderate |
Long‐term infant neurodevelopmental outcome (impairment at 2 years) Umbilical artery Doppler ultrasound vs no Doppler ultrasound | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound compared with no Doppler ultrasound for pregnant women at increased risk of fetal complications
Population: pregnant women at increased risk of fetal complications
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Any perinatal death after randomisation Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound vs no Doppler ultrasound | RR 0.71 [0.52, 0.98] | 16 studies · 10225 participants | Very low Downgraded: publication bias |
Serious neonatal morbidity ‐ singleton pregnancy Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound vs no Doppler ultrasound | RR 0.12 [0.02, 0.99] | 1 study · 500 participants | Very low |
Serious neonatal morbidity ‐ multiple pregnancy Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound vs no Doppler ultrasound | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Caesarean section (elective and emergency) Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound vs no Doppler ultrasound | RR 0.9 [0.84, 0.97] | 14 studies · 7918 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, publication bias |
Induction of labour Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound vs no Doppler ultrasound | RR 0.89 [0.8, 0.99] | 10 studies · 5633 participants | Low Downgraded: inconsistency, publication bias |
Apgar < 7 at 5 minutes Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound vs no Doppler ultrasound | RR 0.92 [0.69, 1.24] | 7 studies · 6321 participants | Low Downgraded: publication bias |
Long‐term infant neurodevelopmental outcome Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound vs no Doppler ultrasound | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound compared to no Doppler ultrasound for pregnant women at increased risk of fetal complications
Population: pregnant women at increased risk of fetal complications
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Any perinatal death after randomisation Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound vs no Doppler ultrasound | RR 0.71 [0.52, 0.98] | 16 studies · 10225 participants | Very low Downgraded: publication bias |
Serious neonatal morbidity ‐ Singleton pregnancy Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound vs no Doppler ultrasound | RR 0.12 [0.02, 0.99] | 1 study · 500 participants | Very low |
Serious neonatal morbidity ‐ Multiple pregnancy Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound vs no Doppler ultrasound | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Caesarean section (elective and emergency) Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound vs no Doppler ultrasound | RR 0.9 [0.84, 0.97] | 14 studies · 7918 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, publication bias |
Induction of labour Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound vs no Doppler ultrasound | RR 0.89 [0.8, 0.99] | 10 studies · 5633 participants | Low Downgraded: inconsistency, publication bias |
Apgar <7 at 5 min Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound vs no Doppler ultrasound | RR 0.92 [0.69, 1.24] | 7 studies · 6321 participants | Low Downgraded: publication bias |
Long term infant neurodevelopmental outcome Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound vs no Doppler ultrasound | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |