↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
12 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
101 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
306 Mendeley
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 12 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 306 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Unknown 304 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 50 16%
Researcher 41 13%
Student > Master 39 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 8%
Other 18 6%
Other 59 19%
Unknown 75 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 137 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 9%
Social Sciences 10 3%
Computer Science 6 2%
Engineering 6 2%
Other 28 9%
Unknown 91 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 07 June 2022.
All research outputs
#1,294,056
of 21,688,977 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,027
of 12,102 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,243
of 244,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#72
of 230 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,688,977 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,102 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.4. 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 244,940 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 230 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 69% of its contemporaries.