A critical review of the Cochrane meta-analysis of routine late-pregnancy ultrasound

The impact of a universal late third-trimester scan for fetal growth restriction on perinatal outcomes in term singleton births: A prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate perinatal mortality, morbidity and obstetric intervention following the introduction of a universal late third-trimester ultrasound scan for growth restriction.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Oxfordshire (OUH), UK.

POPULATION

Women with a non-anomalous singleton pregnancy undergoing pregnancy care and term delivery at OUH with an estimated due date (EDD) of birth between 1 January 2014 and 30 September 2019.

METHODS

Universal ultrasound for fetal growth restriction between 35⁺⁰ and 36⁺⁶ weeks was introduced in 2016. The outcomes of the next 18 631 eligible term pregnancies were compared, adjusting for covariates and time, with the previous 18 636 who had clinically indicated ultrasounds only. 'Screen-positives' for growth restriction were managed according to a pre-determined protocol which included non-intervention for some small-for-gestational-age babies.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Extended perinatal mortality, a composite of mortality or encephalopathy Grade II-III, and expedited birth. Other outcomes included composite adverse outcomes used elsewhere, detection of low birthweight and birth from 37⁺⁰ to 38⁺⁶ weeks.

RESULTS

Extended perinatal deaths decreased 27% and severe morbidity decreased 33% but neither change was statistically significant (adjusted odd ratio [aOR] 0.53, 95% confidence interval [C1] 00.18-1.56 and aOR 0.71, 95% CI 0.31-1.63). Expedited births changed from 35.2% to 37.7% (aOR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92-1.06). Birthweight (<10th centile) detection using fetal biometry alone was 31.4% and rose to 40.5% if all abnormal scan parameters were used.

CONCLUSION

Improvements in mortality and severe morbidity subsequent to introducing a universal ultrasound for growth restriction are encouraging but remain unclear. Little change in intervention is possible. The antenatal detection of low birthweight remains poor but improves where markers of growth restriction are used.

Late pregnancy ultrasound parameters identifying fetuses at risk of adverse perinatal outcomes: a protocol for a systematic review of systematic reviews

INTRODUCTION

Stillbirths and neonatal deaths are leading contributors to the global burden of disease and pregnancy ultrasound has the potential to help decrease this burden. In the absence of high-Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence on universal obstetric ultrasound screening at or close to term, many different screening strategies have been proposed. Systematic reviews have rapidly increased over the past decade owing to the diverse nature of ultrasound parameters and the wide range of possible adverse perinatal outcomes. This systematic review will summarise the evidence on key ultrasound parameters in the published literature to help develop an obstetric ultrasound protocol that identifies pregnancies at risk of adverse perinatal outcomes at or close to term.

METHODS

This study will follow the recent Cochrane guidelines for a systematic review of systematic reviews. A comprehensive literature search will be conducted using Embase (OvidSP), Medline (OvidSP), CDSR, CINAHL (EBSCOhost) and Scopus. Systematic reviews evaluating at least one ultrasound parameter in late pregnancy to detect pregnancies at risk of adverse perinatal outcomes will be included. Two independent reviewers will screen, assess the quality including the risk of bias using the ROBIS tool, and extract data from eligible systematic reviews that meet the study inclusion criteria. Overlapping data will be assessed and managed with decision rules, and study evidence including the GRADE assessment of the certainty of results will be presented as a narrative synthesis as described in the Cochrane guidelines for an overview of reviews.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This research uses publicly available published data; thus, an ethics committee review is not required. The findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021266108.