↓ Skip to main content

Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in normal pregnancy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in normal pregnancy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001450.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zarko Alfirevic, Tamara Stampalija, Nancy Medley

Abstract

One of the main aims of routine antenatal care is to identify the 'at risk' fetus in order to apply clinical interventions which could result in reduced perinatal morbidity and mortality. Doppler ultrasound study of umbilical artery waveforms helps to identify the compromised fetus in 'high-risk' pregnancies and, therefore, deserves assessment as a screening test in 'low-risk' pregnancies. To assess the effects on obstetric practice and pregnancy outcome of routine fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in unselected and low-risk pregnancies. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (28 February 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of Doppler ultrasound for the investigation of umbilical and fetal vessels waveforms in unselected pregnancies compared with no Doppler ultrasound. Studies where uterine vessels have been assessed together with fetal and umbilical vessels have been included. Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. In addition to standard meta-analysis, the two primary outcomes and five of the secondary outcomes were assessed using GRADE software and methodology. We included five trials that recruited 14,624 women, with data analysed for 14,185 women. All trials had adequate allocation concealment, but none had adequate blinding of participants, staff or outcome assessors. Overall and apart from lack of blinding, the risk of bias for the included trials was considered to be low.Overall, routine fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound examination in low-risk or unselected populations did not result in increased antenatal, obstetric and neonatal interventions. There were no group differences noted for the review's primary outcomes of perinatal death and neonatal morbidity. Results for perinatal death were as follows: (average risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35 to 1.83; four studies, 11,183 participants). Only one included trial assessed serious neonatal morbidity and found no evidence of group differences (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.75; one study, 2016 participants).For the comparison of a single Doppler assessment versus no Doppler, evidence for group differences in perinatal death was detected (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.99; one study, 3891 participants). However, these results are based on a single trial, and we would recommend caution when interpreting this finding.There was no evidence of group differences for the outcomes of caesarean section, neonatal intensive care admissions or preterm birth less than 37 weeks.When the quality of the evidence for the main comparison of 'All Doppler versus no Doppler' was assessed with GRADE software, the outcomes of perinatal death and serious neonatal morbidity data were graded as of low quality. Evidence for the outcome of stillbirth was graded according to regimen subgroups - with a moderate quality rating for stillbirth (fetal/umbilical vessels only) and a low quality rating for stillbirth (fetal/umbilical vessels + uterine artery vessels). Evidence for admission to neonatal intensive care unit was assessed as of moderate quality, and evidence for the outcomes of caesarean section and preterm birth less than 37 weeks was graded as of high quality.There is no available evidence to assess the effect on substantive long-term outcomes such as childhood neurodevelopment and no data to assess maternal outcomes, particularly maternal satisfaction. Existing evidence does not provide conclusive evidence that the use of routine umbilical artery Doppler ultrasound, or combination of umbilical and uterine artery Doppler ultrasound in low-risk or unselected populations benefits either mother or baby. Future studies should be designed to address small changes in perinatal outcome, and should focus on potentially preventable deaths.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 124 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 20%
Researcher 21 16%
Student > Bachelor 21 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 13%
Unspecified 10 8%
Other 36 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 82 63%
Unspecified 20 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 8%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 10 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 September 2018.
All research outputs
#979,029
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,984
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,054
of 226,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#91
of 229 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 226,133 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 229 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.