↓ Skip to main content

Routine ultrasound in late pregnancy (after 24 weeks' gestation)

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
40 tweeters
facebook
9 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
154 Mendeley
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
Routine ultrasound in late pregnancy (after 24 weeks' gestation)
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001451.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leanne Bricker, Nancy Medley, Jeremy J Pratt

Abstract

Diagnostic ultrasound is used selectively in late pregnancy where there are specific clinical indications. However, the value of routine late pregnancy ultrasound screening in unselected populations is controversial. The rationale for such screening would be the detection of clinical conditions which place the fetus or mother at high risk, which would not necessarily have been detected by other means such as clinical examination, and for which subsequent management would improve perinatal outcome. To assess the effects on obstetric practice and pregnancy outcome of routine late pregnancy ultrasound, defined as greater than 24 weeks' gestation, in women with either unselected or low-risk pregnancies. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. All acceptably controlled trials of routine ultrasound in late pregnancy (defined as after 24 weeks). Three review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Thirteen trials recruiting 34,980 women were included in the systematic review. Risk of bias was low for allocation concealment and selective reporting, unclear for random sequence generation and incomplete outcome data and high for blinding of both outcome assessment and participants and personnel. There was no difference in antenatal, obstetric and neonatal outcome or morbidity in screened versus control groups. Routine late pregnancy ultrasound was not associated with improvements in overall perinatal mortality. There is little information on long-term substantive outcomes such as neurodevelopment. There is a lack of data on maternal psychological effects.Overall, the evidence for the primary outcomes of perinatal mortality, preterm birth less than 37 weeks, induction of labour and caesarean section were assessed to be of moderate or high quality with GRADE software. There was no association between ultrasound in late pregnancy and perinatal mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.54; participants = 30,675; studies = eight; I² = 29%), preterm birth less than 37 weeks (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.08; participants = 17,151; studies = two; I² = 0%), induction of labour (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; participants = 22,663; studies = six; I² = 78%), or caesarean section (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.15; participants = 27,461; studies = six; I² = 54%). Three additional primary outcomes chosen for the 'Summary of findings' table were preterm birth less than 34 weeks, maternal psychological effects and neurodevelopment at age two. Because none of the included studies reported these outcomes, they were not assessed for quality with GRADE software. Based on existing evidence, routine late pregnancy ultrasound in low-risk or unselected populations does not confer benefit on mother or baby. There was no difference in the primary outcomes of perinatal mortality, preterm birth less than 37 weeks, caesarean section rates, and induction of labour rates if ultrasound in late pregnancy was performed routinely versus not performed routinely. Meanwhile, data were lacking for the other primary outcomes: preterm birth less than 34 weeks, maternal psychological effects, and neurodevelopment at age two, reflecting a paucity of research covering these outcomes. These outcomes may warrant future research.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 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 154 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 147 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 21%
Researcher 19 12%
Student > Bachelor 18 12%
Unspecified 17 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 11%
Other 50 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 83 54%
Unspecified 27 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 12%
Psychology 6 4%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Other 13 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 21 July 2017.
All research outputs
#506,250
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,641
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,119
of 234,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#54
of 239 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 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% 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 done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 234,204 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 239 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.